Instrumental Jazz Ensemble Programs In

Alabama High Schools

by

Lloyd Edward Jones, III

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Auburn, Alabama December 18, 2009

Keywords: music education, band, jazz, Alabama

Copyright 2009 by Lloyd Edward Jones, III

Approved by

Kimberly C. Walls, Chair, Professor, Curriculum and Teaching James Witte, Associate Professor, Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology

Richard Good, Professor, Music Jane Kuehne, Assistant Professor, Curriculum and Teaching

ii

Abstract

The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to survey the instrumental jazz ensembles

of Alabama’s public high schools during the 2008-09 academic year. Since existing data

on high school jazz ensemble programs in Alabama were limited, the objective of this

study was to identify and describe developments and practices of current instrumental

jazz ensemble programs. One hundred eighty three Alabama band directors responded to

questionnaire items concerning the preparation of the director, school curriculum

offerings for jazz instruction, rehearsal scheduling and performance opportunities, and

funding sources and available equipment. Larger high schools in Alabama had a much

higher occurrence of an organized high school jazz band. The majority of respondents

stated that college jazz ensemble activity was most helpful in preparing directors to teach

an instrumental jazz ensemble. Weekly practice time was positively correlated with the

number of public relations performances, and the most common type of performances

were for public relations. Drum sets, electric keyboards, sound equipment, and amplifiers

were priority items for jazz band directors regardless of school size or level of funding.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would first like to thank Dr. Kim Walls for her assistance and guidance during

my studies at Auburn University. Sincere thanks to Dr. Kuehne, Dr. Good, and Dr. Witte

for their meaningful contributions to this work. I very much appreciate the support of my

mother and father who instilled in me an appreciation for lifelong learning and the pursuit

of excellence. Most importantly, I give my thanks and love to my amazing wife, Amy,

whose patience and perseverance have exceeded my own. And to our twins, Edward and

Katherine, who came into this world as this journey began, and to our twins about to

arrive, you have made this even more worthwhile.

iv

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iii

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi

Chapter 1 - Introduction.......................................................................................................1 Statement of the Research Problem .........................................................................5 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................6 Research Questions..................................................................................................6 Definitions of Terms ................................................................................................7 Scope and Limitations..............................................................................................8 Assumptions.............................................................................................................8 Significance of the Study.........................................................................................8

Chapter 2 - Literature Review..............................................................................................9

Purposes of School Jazz...........................................................................................9 Director Preparation...............................................................................................10 Rehearsal Planning and Scheduling.......................................................................11 Finances and Equipment ........................................................................................13 Studies in Jazz Education and Jazz Educator Preparation .....................................15 Summary................................................................................................................24

Chapter 3 - Methods and Procedures .................................................................................26

v

Participants.............................................................................................................27 Access and Permission...........................................................................................28 Instrument ..............................................................................................................28 Data Collection Procedures....................................................................................28

Chapter 4 - Results.............................................................................................................29 Chapter 5 - Discussion .......................................................................................................79

Conclusions............................................................................................................80 Recommendations for Further Research................................................................82 Recommendations for Curriculum Coordinators, Administrators, and Music Teacher Educators..................................................................................................83 Summary................................................................................................................84

References..........................................................................................................................85 Appendix A: Office of Human Subjects Approval and Information Letters.....................91 Appendix B: Questionnaire................................................................................................95 Appendix C: School Groupings .......................................................................................100

vi

List of Tables

1. Highest Degree Earned by Directors ......................................................................30 2. Participation of Directors in Jazz Related Activities ..............................................32 3. Jazz Band Directors’ Preparation to Teach an Instrumental Jazz Ensemble ..........33 4. Number of Jazz Related Professional Development Activities ..............................34 5. Preparation Needed to Teach a Jazz Ensemble.......................................................36 6. Mean Numbers of Students in Each Grade-Level of the Band Program................38 7. Instrumentation for Ensembles ..............................................................................40 8. Academic Credit Received .....................................................................................43 9. Percentage Teaching Jazz Related Courses During the School Day .....................44 10. Jazz Instructional Program Additions....................................................................45 11. Rehearsal Semesters...............................................................................................46 12. Rehearsal Time Per Week by School Size.............................................................48 13. Utilization of Sectional Rehearsals ........................................................................49 14. Performances..........................................................................................................50 15. Jazz Ensemble Annual Budget...............................................................................51 16. Funding Sources.....................................................................................................52 17. Percentages of Jazz Combo Compositions in Music Library ................................53 18. Percentages of Jazz Band Compositions in Music Library ...................................53 19. Percentages of School Owned Equipment for the Jazz Ensemble.........................55

vii

20. Percentages of Needed Equipment for the Jazz Ensemble ....................................56 21. Highest Degree Earned by Years of Teaching a Jazz Ensemble ...........................58 22. Combined Groups: Highest Degree Earned by Years of Teaching a Jazz Ensemble .....................................................................................................61 23. Highest Degree Earned by Incidence of Jazz Bands .............................................62 24. Combined Groups: Three Levels of Degree Preparation.......................................63 25. Highest Degree Earned by School Size .................................................................64 26. Cross-Classification of Directors’ Jazz Participation Activities with Years of Jazz Teaching Experience .......................................................................65 27. Cross-Classification of Directors’ Opinions of the Jazz Experiences that Most Prepared Them to Teach a Jazz Ensemble with Years of Teaching Experience ...67 28. Number of Years Teaching Instrumental Jazz Ensemble ......................................68 29. Prevalence of Jazz Band Instruction by School Size.............................................69 30. Years of Teaching Experience by School Size......................................................71 31. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient: Amount of Weekly Practice with Number of Annual Performances by Type of Performance ..........................73 32. Annual Budget in Dollars by School Size .............................................................74 33. Summary of Equipment Owned by Level of Funding...........................................75

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

How does one begin to define jazz? It has been described as syncopation,

improvisation, interpretation, elaboration, and interpolation. Originally, jazz was the

blending of two musical cultures--African and western European--in New Orleans around

the turn of the twentieth century. Since the early 1900s the word jazz has come to

connote many genres of music--from blues and Dixieland, to boogie-woogie and swing,

to bebop and fusion. The history of jazz has been a constant mixture of musical traditions

derived from diverse cultural contributions (Kuzmich & Bash, 1984).

Traditionally, what has distinguished jazz development from other styles of music

is its individualistic nature. In classical music the intent of the composer is more

important than the actual performance or performer(s). Conversely, jazz music requires

the performer(s) to include some part of self in the interpretation and presentation of the

musical work. To perform jazz music any other way is to cheat the audience. Jazz is a

performer’s art--not a composer’s art (Kuzmich & Bash, 1984). In 1987, in a tribute to

jazz saxophonist John Coltrane on his birthday, the United States Senate in Washington,

D.C., proclaimed jazz as a rare and valuable American treasure (Senate Judiciary, 1987).

By making this proclamation, not only did the Senate honor Coltrane but, more

importantly, it also gave tribute to the genre of jazz--a music native to America.

American educators have long recognized the value of jazz to American culture and

2

began including the study of jazz in instrumental music programs as early as the 1920s.

During the Swing Era of the 1930s, school jazz programs continued to grow. The primary

function of the band at this time was to play for dancing. The terms dance band and

swing band were used by educators. By the 1940s there was an increased interest in jazz

band programs in the high school music curriculum (Ferriano, 1974).

After World War II, the G.I. Bill veterans, who had experienced jazz during the

war, joined the teaching ranks at the high school level. This provided the forward motion

for the dance band movement in high schools (Tolson, 2001). The movement experienced

rapid growth throughout the 1950s. During this decade, musicians began to publish

instruction books on jazz performance. Jazz was taught in college for credit, and some

institutions, including North Texas State University (Henry, 1981), began to specialize in

jazz instruction (Tirro, 1977). The popularity of jazz ensembles at the collegiate level led

many institutions to start a degree program in jazz studies (Berry, 1985). North Texas

State University, Westlake College of Music, and Berklee School of Music pioneered

degree programs in jazz (Henry, 1981).

In 1960, about 5,000 U.S. high schools had at least one jazz band; most were not

part of the formal music curriculum. Many of these jazz bands were entertainment

oriented ensembles whose primary function was playing for school dances and

community social events. They generally rehearsed outside of regular school hours

(Baker, 1981). During this decade, music companies began publishing musical

arrangements suitable for high school and collegiate jazz bands. Two major events

occurred in the late 1960s which were important to the development of jazz education in

the United States: the forming of the National Association for Jazz Education (NAJE)

3

and the Tanglewood Symposium. NAJE members presented a constitution and set of

bylaws to the Music Educators National Conference (MENC) in March of 1968. The

parent organization quickly accepted NAJE as a member, and since 1968, jazz has held

an important position in the continual development of music education. NAJE was

restructured and became the International Association for Jazz Education (IAJE) (Luty,

1982). In 2008 IAJE disbanded, and MENC decided to step forward and assist the jazz

education community. To support education in jazz, MENC intended to work with

leaders in jazz education to offer services and benefits to jazz educators (Lasko, 2008).

The Tanglewood Symposium was organized in 1967 to determine the status and

future role of American music education in a society that was ever-changing (Andrews,

1970). According to Isbell (2007), an equally important purpose was to connect the

musical experiences students had in school to those they experienced outside school.

Based on the declaration presented at the symposium and recorded in a journal article by

Andrews (1970), eight goals of high-priority were established in the Goals and

Objectives Project of 1969. Five of the eight objectives have directly related to jazz

education.

1. Lead in efforts to develop programs of music instruction challenging to all

students, whatever their socio-cultural condition, and directed toward the needs of

citizens in a pluralistic society.

2. Lead in the development of programs of study that correlate performing,

creating, and listening to music and encompass a diversity of musical behaviors.

3. Assist teachers in the identification of musical behaviors relevant to the needs

of their students.

4

4. Advance the teaching of music of all periods, styles, forms, and cultures.

5. Lead in efforts to ensure that every school system allocates sufficient staff,

time, and funds to support a comprehensive and excellent music program

(Andrews, 1970, pp. 24-25).

According to Baker (2001), by the end of the 1970s, more than 70% of the 30,000

junior and senior high schools in the U.S. had at least one jazz ensemble. Over 500

colleges were offering at least one jazz ensemble or course for credit, with 15% of the

500 plus schools offering jazz related degrees. However, by the 1990s, a significant

number of U.S. junior and senior high schools had jazz ensembles as did most colleges

and universities. Many of the high schools also offered jazz courses. The colleges and

universities developed jazz degree programs, and some initiated pedagogy programs in

jazz for their music education majors.

In 1994, the next visionary tool in advancing music education was implemented

with the National Standards for Arts Education. These standards further stressed the ideal

of a multicultural, multimusical education (Kelly & Weelden, 2004). According to

Hinckley (2000), five years after the implementation of the national music standards, the

Housewright Declaration of 1999 enhanced the notions of a multicultural, multimusical

education and helped to bring about more change for music education. Twelve

agreements were made based on the future of music education. They were broad

objectives--covering many topics, such as recruiting prospective music teachers,

continuing research in music, and integrating other music that people experience besides

just Western music (Madsen, 2000). MENC continued proactively by looking ahead to

the twenty-first century with a plan entitled Vision 2020. Vision 2020 was a way to begin

5

creating a map for music education as MENC members felt it should be in the year 2020.

The overriding mission was that music educators continue to “do the right things for the

right reasons” (Hinckley, 2000, p. 24).

Jazz education has been recognized as one approach to incorporate multicultural,

multimusical educational experiences for students. Over the past century, jazz education

has become an important aspect of music education in the United States as well as in the

music curriculum of Alabama. The Alabama Course of Study for Arts Education has

recommended the jazz ensemble as one of the optional programs a music educator may

employ (Morton, 2006). It is described as follows:

a means by which instrumental music students can express themselves through a

different idiom and can enjoy the experience of participating in small group

performance. The content and performance standards of the Jazz Ensemble should

be at a minimum equivalent to those of other instrumental courses. Participation

in Jazz Ensemble improves the playing ability of students due to the increased

emphasis on major and minor scales, rhythms, and understanding of chords and

chord structure. Creativity is enhanced through the development of

improvisational skills. Jazz Ensemble can lead to the improvement of other

school instrumental ensembles in which members participate due to the

improvement of playing abilities (p. 104).

Statement of the Research Problem

Throughout the years as jazz has gained in popularity, the demand for its

inclusion in high schools has increased. By 1979 there were 32,000 public school jazz

ensembles, and in 1991 that number had increased to 45,000 (Hoffer, 1991). With this

6

increased demand, school administrators have wrestled with the details of how to provide

this type of teaching in a student's overall music education, and band directors have been

confronted with the issues of organization and administration of an instrumental jazz

program in addition to their other responsibilities.

There are various necessary components that must exist for a jazz band program

to function. Training prospective music educators in jazz pedagogy is essential. Ensemble

opportunities must be provided for the students. Jazz bands must have an organized

rehearsal and performance schedule to encourage the students to learn and perform jazz

band charts. Funding and equipment must be available to meet the needs of the band.

How are jazz bands in Alabama faring in each of these areas? Studies have been

conducted in Alabama on jazz band pre-service teacher programs (Knox, 1996) and jazz

personalities in the state (Berry, 1985). A review of the research and related literature

revealed no study that surveyed the public high school jazz band directors in Alabama to

gather information about current programs.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to survey the status of existing high school jazz

band programs in Alabama. The goal was to conduct a study that would be useful to

instrumental music educators, school administrators, and curriculum coordinators for use

in instructional planning for the arts and the continued development of jazz band

programs in the public high schools of Alabama.

Research Questions

This study was a survey of the status of jazz ensemble programs in the public high

schools of Alabama. A questionnaire was used to gather data to answer the following

7

questions relevant to jazz ensemble programs.

1. What is the relationship between director preparation and the number of current

high school jazz bands?

2. What is the relationship between school size and the jazz instruction provided

for students? 3. What is the relationship between amount of practice time and number of performances among high school jazz bands? 4. What is the relationship between funding and equipment for high school jazz bands?

Definitions of Terms

Instrumental jazz combo - a small group of three or more jazz musicians whose

performance is highly improvisational

Instrumental jazz ensemble - any group of jazz musicians engaged in the rehearsing and

performing of jazz music. Usually refers to traditional big band instrumentation (4-5

saxophones, 3-4 trombones, 3-4 trumpets, piano, guitar, bass, and drums)

Instrumental jazz program - consists of a jazz band, combo(s), and possible jazz

education classes such as history, theory, and pedagogy

Studio laboratory band - the instrumentation of a standard jazz band or big band is

augmented to include flutes, clarinets, French horns, tuba, and auxiliary percussionists.

Common instrumentation is: 5 saxophones, 4 trombones, 4 trumpets, 4 flutes, 4 soprano

clarinets, 1 bass clarinet, 4 French horns, a tuba, 2 auxiliary percussionists, piano, bass,

guitar, and drum set

8

Scope and Limitations

The focus of this survey study was on the total population of public high school

jazz band programs in Alabama. This study did not delve into the private, elementary,

middle, or junior high school jazz band programs.

Assumptions of the Study

The writer assumed that the jazz band directors surveyed were truthful and

accurate with survey responses and were concerned with (a) director’s professional

training, (b) the quality of a students’ comprehensive music education, (c) availability of

ensemble classes, (d) scheduling of rehearsals and performances, and (e) the availability

of funding and resources for the high school jazz band.

Significance of the Study

The results of this study may be valuable to instrumental music educators, school

administrators, and curriculum coordinators for use in instructional planning for the arts

and the continued development of jazz band programs in the public high schools of

Alabama.

9

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The jazz band is frequently included in the high school curriculum because many

educators advocate its value in the overall music program. When conducting this

literature review, it was found that important jazz band studies have been conducted in

jazz band educational settings and described in educational journals, textbooks, and

articles and in educational research conducted by the use of a data gathering instrument

and described in a formal dissertation.

Purposes of School Jazz

The purposes of school jazz are noted in instrumental music education textbooks.

Bollinger (1979) noted that jazz bands have been accepted as a regular part of many

public schools’ music curriculum and listed the following as the foundational elements of

the jazz band (a) educational value, (b) student interest, (c) functional advantages, (d)

public relations value, and (e) additional music challenge and enrichment for talented

students. Kowall (1966) stated that the jazz ensemble has been a very mobile unit that has

been of great value to the school and community. Bessom, Tatarunis, and Forcucci

(1974) stated that senior high school instrumental music programs should service the

needs of all students who wish to perform, regardless of ability and area of interest and,

whenever possible, offerings in the high school music curriculum should include stage

10

band among other instrumental ensembles. Although some schools offered jazz band as

an extra-curricular class, some schools found it feasible to offer these additional classes

as electives (Morgan, 1955).

Many educators believed that students are motivated by the social benefits offered

by jazz bands. Adderly, Kennedy, and Berz (2003) investigated the world of the high

school music classroom. It was found that students like ensemble teamwork where one is

a part of something much greater than what one can produce alone. Goodrich (2007)

reported in an educational journal that peer mentoring may attribute to the success of a

high school jazz band He suggested that music educators develop, support, and

implement a peer mentoring program within their jazz band to aid directors and students

in instruction and rehearsal efficiency. Berry (1971) recognized in an educational journal

that the jazz band allows a student to gain immeasurably from being solely responsible

for his personal part and noted that school jazz bands have helped high school musicians

improve their playing skills.

Director Preparation

Luty (1982) noted in an educational journal that many lay people and some music

educators have the opinion that the performance of jazz music requires little formal

training. However, as much as all performers needed formal instruction, jazz educators

needed formal training on the fundamentals of managing jazz ensembles of varying sizes

and purposes (Luty, 1982). Roach (1998) reported in an educational journal an interview

with Ellis Marsalis. Marsalis felt that when it comes to college teacher education

programs, jazz is one skill that should be taught. Music educators needed these skills to

prepare them for the marketplace. According to Bessom, Tatarunis, and Forcucci (1974),

11

the successful music educator's knowledge of music history and literature should include

jazz and pop, and he should have the ability to organize a stage band. Tolson (2001)

stated many teachers fear teaching jazz because they lack experiences in the idiom. He

noted that teachers should realize that one does not have to be an accomplished jazz

musician to teach it. A teacher should simply understand how the fundamental musical

elements are applied in a jazz setting.

Rehearsal Planning and Scheduling

Rehearsal and performance practices were an important consideration for band

directors and school administrators. The following education textbooks provided

pertinent information. According to Henry (1981), the quality and success of any

performing organization is influenced by what happens during rehearsals. Using a

systematic approach to rehearsing brings about better outcomes than a haphazard

approach. Planning by the director is often overlooked, but good planning will yield a

more productive rehearsal with less wasted time. It was advised by Singleton and

Anderson (1969) to avoid scheduling rehearsals after breakfast and lunch. The authors

also advised avoiding the last hour of the school day. They suggested midmorning or

mid-afternoon rehearsals during normal school hours. However, there were some

advantages to after school rehearsals. Students who rehearsed before or after school felt

there was something special about the group, and school administrators seemed

impressed by a group that does not disrupt the school schedule. According to Hoffer

(1991), it is sometimes difficult for a jazz band to meet during the regular school day

since the majority of jazz band members are also members of a concert band. Few

students have the opportunity of registering for two music courses during the course of a

12

school day. Since the jazz band is smaller and more selective, it was suggested that a

successful jazz band should be able to function well with a couple of rehearsals each

week--before or after school. Ferguson (1976) stated that the successful rehearsal is the

key to a successful jazz band. This was found to be true more than any other

consideration. All efforts of performance are potential disasters if proper preparation has

not taken place within the regular practice period.

Seating arrangements for the jazz ensemble rehearsal are varied and were mostly

dictated by the director's preference, available space, and other relevant factors. Rehearsal

facilities have been known to have an effect on performance. Henry (1981) advised that

the director consider rehearsing at different rooms or facilities to more ready the students

for the performance.

Sectional rehearsals should be arranged when preparing for performances. A

competent leader should be appointed to conduct the rehearsal, but the director should

assume the responsibility at the majority of the sectional rehearsals (Singleton &

Anderson, 1969). Sectional rehearsals have a positive effect on performances. During this

time, the director places his focus on one particular section of the jazz ensemble. These

rehearsals allow for the structured time spent practicing one section's part that will later

be incorporated into the full jazz ensemble (Henry, 1981).

When preparing for performances, directors should select music that is not

beyond the technical and physical capabilities of the group. Actual programming of a

concert is considered as a large part of the concert preparation. For a jazz ensemble

performance, a relaxed, informal atmosphere is best. The performance opportunities for

the jazz ensemble are wide and varied (Henry, 1981). Proper preparation for performing

13

is essential. Community and school calendars should be consulted to ensure performance

attendance is at a maximum. It was recommended that a performance schedule be set at

the beginning of the school year or academic term to allow time for preparation and non-

performance practice--sight-reading and study time (Henry, 1981). The public

performance has grown out of rehearsals, and it should be a goal of rehearsals. The costs

of performances should have been reasonable and stayed within music budget allocations.

Concert band programs should not have made excessive demands on the students.

Performances should align to the overall scope of a school's music curriculum (Bessom et

al., 1974). If jazz is included as part of a school's music curriculum, then the performing

group's rehearsals may be scheduled during curricular time. The jazz band considered

important enough to receive curricular status should have been able to meet regularly

with minimal conflicts from other subjects and activities (Singleton & Anderson, 1969).

Blocher (2000) stated in another educational journal that scheduling has been

singled out as the major reason instrumental jazz ensembles have not been included in

high school music programs. Various scheduling models have been used with limited

success within music programs. The four-block schedule has not offered students or

music educators continuity. Many times students have been forced out of music classes in

order to enroll in required credit courses. Variations on the block schedule have had

limited success and music educators felt that only 75% of a block rehearsal (90 minutes)

is productive (Blocher, 2000).

Finances and Equipment

Finances and equipment for the instrumental jazz ensemble are important

considerations for band directors and school administrators. Skinner (1986) stated in an

14

educational journal that financial problems exist in the most established jazz ensemble

programs as well as the ones in developmental stages. Financial issues usually increase

whenever new courses were introduced or existing ones were upgraded. Wheeler (1992)

stated in another educational journal that budget problems have threatened the existence

of many school music ensembles. Kuzmich and Bash (1984) reported in a music

education textbook that in high school instrumental programs over fifty percent of monies

have been provided through fundraising efforts. Grants were available to music groups

through fundraising efforts. Grants were also available to music groups through various

industries and arts endowments. Arts councils, which allocated state monies for specific

performance activities, were functioning in some states, and private funding may have

supplemented the instrumental jazz program for some schools.

According to music education textbooks, an instrumental music curriculum has

required large amounts of equipment to effectively achieve its goals. Instruments,

uniforms, risers, music folders, printed music, music stands, storage cabinets, sound

equipment, and other necessities were needed by instrumental music programs that may

not have been needed in other academic courses. Traditionally, 20-24 square feet per

student is recommended to achieve ample working space and proper acoustics for an

instrumental music program (Bessom et al., 1974), and Bollinger (1979) stated that a

music library is of most importance to a successful music program.

Unusual instruments such as the soprano saxophone, flugelhorns, synthesizer,

conga drums, and Latin percussion instruments are a necessity for the instrumental jazz

program. Additionally, textbooks and etude books on improvisation, jazz history, jazz

theory, and jazz arranging should be available to students. Quality recording equipment

15

should be used as a teaching tool in order to properly analyze performance quality

(Kuzmich & Bash, 1984).

Studies in Jazz Education and Jazz Educator Preparation

Dissertations were reviewed which contained information about jazz education in

high schools and teacher preparation programs at colleges and universities. Those studies

which focused on director preparation, jazz curriculum offerings, rehearsal and

performance practices, and funding and equipment resources were also reviewed.

Fisher (1981) conducted a study with 163 participants to determine a rationale for

including jazz courses in college music education programs and to gather data to help

meet the needs of public school music teachers. He surveyed jazz education specialists in

the United States, heads of college music departments in Pennsylvania which offer

degrees in music education, and high school band directors in Pennsylvania. The major

intent of the study was to utilize the data collected through a questionnaire to identify and

develop jazz courses which would be of greatest use to the public school music teacher.

Respondents were generally in favor of including jazz courses in the undergraduate music

curriculum. The respondents also felt that ideal preparation for a music teacher should

include both required courses in jazz studies and time spent experiencing public

performing in the jazz genre. Respondents generally felt that these courses should be

taught by full-time faculty members who were jazz specialists. Respondents gave four

courses the highest priority rating on the survey: jazz band methods, jazz improvisation,

jazz band, and jazz history and literature.

Payne (1973) employed a descriptive survey technique by personally interviewing

50 randomly selected band directors (9.7% of the total population of 484 instrumental

16

music educators) employed in Louisiana’s public and nonpublic schools and inquiring

about their school’s jazz program. His findings showed that 100% of interviewees felt

that when developing the total high school music program jazz ensembles should be

included, and 68% felt that the jazz ensemble provided musical experiences that are not

available through the traditional ensembles. Payne inquired as to why directors who had

no jazz ensemble chose not to include jazz as a part of their total music program. The

responses he received were lack of time (39.3%), lack of student interest (10.7%),

director’s lack of interest in jazz study (7.1%), and insufficient budget (7.1%). Lack of

proper instrumentation, lack of equipment, insufficient number of students, lack of

musically advanced students, and lack of transportation for after-school rehearsals were

also given as reasons no instrumental jazz ensemble was incorporated into existing music

programs. Additionally, Payne asked those directors that had a jazz ensemble why they

chose to include them in their music programs. The responses he received were numerous

and varied: to provide meaningful musical opportunities not available in traditional

ensembles (73%), to provide a balanced program (60%), to provide a mobile unit for

public relation purposes (59%), to develop and improve the total band program (50%),

and to provide opportunities for more advanced students (50%). The rewarding personal

experience afforded the director, the contributions jazz has made to American music, and

providing training for potential professional performers were also given as reasons

directors chose to include the jazz ensemble in their instrumental music programs. Payne

concluded that future research should be conducted focusing primarily on the

organization and administration of high school jazz ensembles in other geographical

areas.

17

In a two-volume study by Grimes (1988), conducting and rehearsal techniques of

five jazz ensemble directors were analyzed. He collected data by videotaping each

director during a normal rehearsal and by interviewing each director. The five high

school directors chosen to be a part of the study were recommended by leading jazz

educators and adjudicators. Analysis was made with a procedure devised to catalog

gestures and verbal comments of each director. Rehearsal events were organized

according to warm-up, count-offs, phrasing, articulation, balance/blend, time feel, and

dynamics. Grimes noted, as limitations to the study, that while rehearsing and conducting

techniques were an important part of jazz program development--demographics, funding,

administrative support, cultural awareness, and other variables not within the immediate

control of the director have a larger influence on the success of a school’s jazz program.

Grimes reported results for different aspects of the study. However, the data most

relevant to the current study were the information Grimes reported on director

preparation. It was found that a successful jazz band director must have the traditional

instrumental music teacher training, but alone it is not enough for the director to teach

jazz successfully. Grimes reported that directors should be able to play jazz on some

level. He suggested that directors without jazz experience should still consider taking on

the responsibility of a jazz program; however they should become involved in the music

now, investigate improvisation, play in a band, listen to records, and prepare. The results

of the study strongly suggested that the best jazz learning opportunities occur outside

academia.

Scagnoli (1978) surveyed the status of high school band programs and related

band activities found in the public senior high schools in New York. By means of

18

questionnaire, he surveyed 483 directors of which 471 directors responded. He found that

the principal jazz ensembles in his sample population rehearsed 2.3 hours per week.

Approximately one-fourth (25.4 %) met during the school day, approximately half (43.4

%) rehearsed after school, and one-fourth rehearsed at night. A few directors (3.6 %)

rehearsed before school, and 2.2 % rehearsed during the lunch period. Approximately

one-third of directors in Scagnoli’s study indicated scheduling as the greatest problem in

achieving the band program’s overall goals. Scagnoli questioned directors as to why they

did not have a jazz ensemble. Out of 95 directors in the study that did not have a jazz

ensemble, 20% stated lack of time as the main reason for not running the ensemble. Some

directors (17.9%) were just starting a new band and had not coordinated the jazz

ensemble, and another 17.9% felt that their respective school population was too small to

support a jazz ensemble. Scheduling was a problem for 16.8% of directors. Other reasons

for not having a jazz program were no student desire for jazz activity, no budget,

director’s lack of interest, administrative indifference, and director’s lack of jazz

experience. The respondents to Scagnoli’s survey averaged five performances each

school year; however, 124 directors chose not to respond to this question on the survey.

When questioned about jazz competitions, more than two-thirds (68.2%) of the

respondents felt that jazz competitions help motivate students, and some (24.3%)

believed they were invalid. Other benefits of competitions noted were (a) provides a

forum for student evaluation, (b) provides a forum for student recognition, (c) provides a

forum for director evaluation, and (d) helps build students’ character. Scagnoli

questioned the directors about funding sources and found that of the schools surveyed,

42.4% had booster organizations funding the expenditures for the jazz ensemble. He also

19

addressed jazz ensemble equipment and the results indicated that the equipment most

often supplied by the school district was set drums (82.4%), microphone stand and

extensions (55.2%), electric bass guitar (45.2%), electric piano (36.4%), and electric

guitar (23.9%). Some other equipment the respondents mentioned receiving were jazz

ensemble music, music cases, instrument stands, flugelhorn, soprano sax, conga drums,

and mutes.

Mack (1993) included a detailed examination of successful jazz ensembles in 20

public high schools in Indiana. The schools selected for the study were more suburban

and urban than rural, and school selection was based on a minimum of four superior

ratings at state jazz ensemble festivals. His study divided the sample population into four

groups, based on school enrollment. By means of a descriptive survey questionnaire, his

findings showed the larger population areas produced the greater number of jazz

ensembles per school. One hundred percent of surveyed schools had a feeder program,

and of those feeder programs – eight had a jazz program. Mack found the greater the

number of programs that fed into the high school and the more years that the director had

taught at the high school, the greater the number of jazz ensembles at the high school. He

also noted that 85% of the successful jazz directors surveyed played an instrument that is

traditionally found in a jazz ensemble. Interestingly, 65% of the directors had not taken

any undergraduate or graduate courses in the study of jazz apart from performance based

ensemble classes. The jazz ensembles that met during the school day as a regular class

consistently had more rehearsal time than the jazz ensembles that met on an extra-

curricular basis. During rehearsals, the directors of a majority of these jazz programs had

students sing their parts. All who had students sing parts were members of IAJE. A

20

willingness to perform for public relations seemed to be a significant factor in the

success, and the surveyed directors stated that the most critical support groups were the

band parents, the school board, and the school administration. Mack concluded that the

long term investment of time in a program appeared to be very important to a program’s

success. Mack advised that future research should be conducted on the jazz programs at

small schools that manage to succeed despite their size.

Jones (1986) constructed a questionnaire that was submitted to band directors in

selected public high schools of Alabama. Jones’s study was a follow up to Hinton’s

(1957) study--an examination of all components of the white public high school band

programs in Alabama. Jones’s intent was to identify practices of band programs in

Alabama, and he divided the random population of 105 band directors into three equal

groups based on school enrollment. Group one (n = 35) consisted of schools with 606 to

2,488 students; group two (n = 35) had 322 to 603 students; and group three (n = 35) had

114 to 315 students. Respondents surveyed in group one spent an average of 3.5 hours in

jazz ensemble rehearsal weekly. Group two directors indicated spending 4.2 hours on

average per week, and group three reported an average of 2.3 hours each week. Two jazz

ensemble directors from group one rehearsed before school, 12 during, and 6 after. In

group two, 30% rehearsed during the school day, and for group three no directors

reported rehearsals during the school day. Jones reported that the jazz ensemble libraries

of his participants contained fewer titles per student than the marching and concert band

libraries. He found that his group one schools provided more jazz ensemble equipment

than did groups two and three, and one school provided a uniform for its members.

21

Knox (1996) examined the implications for teacher education as it pertained to the

director. Knox used four questionnaires developed to gather information from four

different groups: collegiate music educators (n = 19), collegiate jazz educators (n = 13),

Alabama high school band directors (n = 175), and Alabama high school choral directors

(n = 70). His respondents felt deficient in the jazz field. Fifty-seven (80%) of all

respondents believed their own jazz study was lacking sufficient undergraduate training.

Fifty-four percent of those surveyed felt that the Alabama colleges and universities were

not preparing future music educators to teach jazz adequately. Fourteen percent felt some

institutions were preparing students well. Knox asked his respondents to list courses

important to the undergraduate music curriculum. The five most frequently mentioned

were jazz improvisation (27%), jazz ensemble (22%), jazz history (15%), jazz pedagogy

(15%), and jazz theory (11%). He recommended that colleges and universities offer more

jazz education opportunities at the undergraduate level for potential music educators.

Ninety-two percent of band directors with jazz ensembles and 72% of band directors

without jazz ensembles were convinced that jazz instruction should be as important in a

high school music program as marching and concert band. Approximately one-fourth of

those surveyed did not instruct a jazz ensemble.

Wiggins (1997) assessed the status of jazz music education in selected high

schools throughout the eight educational regions of the North Carolina public school

system. By means of a questionnaire for high schools and a check sheet for universities,

he collected data to assess the status of jazz education in the public high schools of North

Carolina and to evaluate curricular offerings and recommend possible revisions in the

jazz music education curriculum in North Carolina universities. Wiggins specifically

22

researched (a) professional characteristics of selected band directors, (b) characteristics of

jazz music study in the directors’ high school music programs, and (c) characteristics of

the band directors’ undergraduate degree programs concerning the study of and

preparation to teach jazz music. He surveyed 132 high school band directors (grades 9-

12). The results provided by the study revealed that jazz is a major component in high

school music programs in North Carolina. Over half of the directors surveyed offered

jazz music courses and half felt unprepared to teach jazz music. It was found that the

inclusion of jazz courses in North Carolina schools were affected by (a) administration,

(b) community, (c) student support of jazz music education, (d) band directors’ prior

experiences as jazz performers, (e) scheduling, (f) directors’ major and minor performing

instrument, (g) undergraduate participation in jazz music courses, and (h) knowledge

gained from formal and informal study of jazz music. Wiggins recommended his study be

replicated by focusing on fewer regions in North Carolina.

Goodrich (2005) conducted an ethnographic study in which he observed a high

school jazz band for an entire academic year. He set out to ascertain how this band

achieved such a high level of performance consistently. The major components of

success were found to be peer and adult mentoring, listening to jazz, advanced

improvisation skills, and frequent performances. This study implied that there is a need

for more teacher preparation in jazz education.

McCurdy (1983) set out to develop a detailed guide for organizing and

maintaining a successful school jazz band. Ultimately, this study was an evaluation of the

program he developed--McCurdy Jazz Ensemble Method. Seventeen music educators

who lacked formal jazz education training were selected to participate in this

23

experimental study. He conducted a pretest, treatment, and posttest. After administering

the posttest, McCurdy found that the participants’ music theory in the jazz idiom had

improved since being trained on the MJEM. Directors had a positive feeling toward jazz

ensembles and a desire to implement some of the program’s techniques. Overall, he

found that the MJEM appeared to be a thorough instructional package for organizing and

maintaining the jazz ensemble.

Jones (2005) investigated the role of jazz in music teacher education programs in

Oklahoma colleges and universities. He conducted an online survey of music education

program administrators in colleges and universities in Oklahoma. Over half the

respondents reported their undergraduate in music education did not include a jazz

performance experience, although jazz ensemble instruction is available in 91% of

Oklahoma’s music teacher education institutions. Jones also found that administrators

strongly felt that pre-service teachers should be required to take at least one course in jazz

studies. He further noted that the jazz ensemble was the most often reported jazz activity

in Oklahoma’s high schools.

Brittin (1997) investigated a sample of Texas music teachers’ experiences,

teaching situations, and attitudes in her formal dissertation. Fifty-four participants from

middle schools, high schools, and universities across the state were surveyed. Brittin

found there was a perceived decrease in support for high school jazz bands in Texas.

Twenty-eight of the respondents had a jazz band teaching assignment. One-half of

respondents had participated in a jazz ensemble themselves, and one-third played a jazz

instrument as their primary instrument. It was also found that having more experience

24

performing and teaching jazz did not constitute a strong correlation with the perceptions

concerning the benefits of jazz participation as defined in Brittin’s survey.

Summary

Related jazz band studies have been conducted (a) informally in jazz band

educational settings and described in educational journals, books, and articles and (b)

formally in educational research conducted by the use of a data gathering instrument and

described in a formal dissertation. All of the studies and other sources selected for this

review were helpful in detailing the important components and specific challenges of

high school instrumental jazz programs, and there were a number of instances where

information overlapped. Studies by Scagnoli (1978), Payne (1973), Knox (1996), Mack

(1993), and Jones (1986) were especially helpful in delineating a variety of topics related

to the high school instrumental jazz ensemble. There was substantial evidence that jazz

ensemble directors need more undergraduate preparation. A large percentage of band

directors with jazz ensembles, as well as band directors without jazz ensembles, were

convinced that jazz instruction should be as important in a high school music program as

marching and concert bands. Rehearsal scheduling was singled out as the major reason

the instrumental jazz ensemble was not included in high school music programs. Formal

concerts, jazz festivals, and public relations events were the venues where jazz ensembles

tended to perform. Financial issues were prevalent, and equipment needed for the jazz

ensemble was--in most instances--available. However, the review of literature did not

reveal a comprehensive study on the status of instrumental jazz bands in Alabama’s

public high schools. Knox (1996) examined the implications for teacher education in

Alabama as it pertained to the director. Jones’s (1986) intent was to identify practices of

25

public high school bands in Alabama; he gathered data concerning band programs in their

entirety, including, but not limited to, marching band, concert band, and jazz band. The

current study was conducted to survey the status of the existing high school jazz band

programs in Alabama, and it differed in purpose, scope, and depth from Jones’s (1986)

previously conducted study.

26

CHAPTER 3

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The purpose of the study was to survey the status of the existing public high

school jazz band programs in Alabama. The goal was to conduct a study that would be

useful to instrumental music educators, school administrators, and curriculum

coordinators for use in instructional planning for the arts and the continued development

of jazz ensemble programs in the public high schools of Alabama. This chapter provides

an overview of the general methodology, data gathering procedures, and participants

invited to participate in the study. A data gathering instrument was used to answer the

following questions relevant to jazz band programs.

1. What is the relationship between director preparation and the number of current

high school jazz bands?

2. What is the relationship between school size and the jazz instruction provided

for students? 3. What is the relationship between the amount of practice time and the number of performances among high school jazz bands? 4. What is the relationship between funding and equipment for high school jazz bands?

The general methodology of the survey study was a quantitative, cross-sectional

design. The design was selected to provide a numeric description of the trends found in

27

jazz programs by studying the population of Alabama band directors. The survey was an

easily implemented instrument for a larger population; it provided quick turnaround in

data collection; and valid inferences could be made due to the consistency of the

instrument across participants (Creswell, 2003). Director preparation, school curriculum

offerings for jazz instruction, rehearsal scheduling and performance opportunities, and

funding sources and available equipment were found as important variables in the related

literature and were investigated.

Participants

The population for this study was public high school instrumental music

educators in Alabama. All directors were invited and encouraged to participate so the

data related to current jazz ensemble programs would be valid and representative of the

entire population. The 2008-09 Alabama Bandmasters Association Directory was

consulted to identify high school bands currently operating in the state (N = 313). The

major disadvantage associated with a questionnaire is the percentage of respondents.

Often times, the response rate is low (Roberts, 2004). A return rate of 70% or 223

responses was desired for validation of the study.

The schools were grouped according to their average daily enrollment as provided

by the Alabama State Department of Education Daily Average Attendance Report for the

2008-09 academic year. The researcher utilized the following groupings for organization

of data and analysis: Group I (n = 101)--schools with an average daily attendance of 0-

365 students, Group II (n = 101)--schools with an attendance rate of 366-699, and Group

III (n = 106)--any school with an average daily attendance equal to or greater than 700

(see Appendix C).

28

Access and Permission

The researcher followed the policies and criteria of the Auburn University Office

of Human Subjects Research to receive permission to conduct the study (see Appendix

A).

Instrument

Director preparation, school curriculum offerings for jazz instruction, rehearsal

scheduling and performance opportunities, and funding sources and available equipment

were found as important variables in the related literature and were investigated with a

questionnaire (see Appendix B). Questionnaire items were evaluated for content validity

by a panel of education and music education faculty.

Data Collection Procedures

The initial mailing to directors included an introductory letter from the researcher

to encourage participation and guarantee confidentiality (see Appendix A), the self-

administered questionnaire (see Appendix B), an ink pen for completing the

questionnaire, and a stamped return envelope. Five days after the initial mailing, a

reminder post card was sent to encourage maximum participation. It was suggested that

the questionnaire be returned to the researcher within two weeks. To those who did not

respond after two weeks, another reminder letter and a replacement questionnaire with a

return envelope were sent. A third, and final, reminder letter was sent to all who had not

responded after four weeks from the date of the initial mailing (Roberts, 2004). Upon

receipt, the data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet for organization and analysis.

The Statistical Analysis System was also used to analyze the data.

29

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to survey the status of the existing high school jazz

band programs in Alabama. The data presented in this chapter were obtained from a

questionnaire that was divided into four sections. The sections were (a) director

preparation, (b) school curriculum offerings for jazz instruction, (c) rehearsal scheduling

and performance opportunities, and (d) funding sources and available equipment. The

information was analyzed for differences based on group according to school size.

According to the Alabama Bandmasters Association Handbook there were 313 public

secondary schools in Alabama which had band programs in the 2008-09 school year.

One-hundred-eighty-three surveys were returned by the directors for an overall response

rate of 59.4%. Responses were received from 54% of Group I schools, 61.3% of Group II

schools, and 56.6% of Group III schools.

Director Preparation

Item one was answered by all respondents. Responses to questionnaire item one

(N = 183)--concerning the highest degree earned by directors--revealed the master’s

degree was the most prevalent degree held in Groups II and III, while the bachelor’s

degree was most prevalent in Group I. In Group I, 52% of respondents held a bachelor’s

degree; in Group II, 59% of the respondents held a master’s degree; and in Group III,

30

47% of respondents held a master’s degree. The doctoral degree was held by 5% of

respondents in Group III.

Table 1

Highest Degree Earned by Directors

Degree Types Held

Group I Group II Group III Total

Bachelor

51.7%

33.8%

36.7%

40.4%

Master

39.6%

58.5%

46.7%

48.6%

Master + 30

3.4%

4.6%

10.0%

6.0%

Specialist

3.4%

1.5%

1.7%

2.2%

Doctoral

1.7%

1.5%

5.0%

2.7%

Other

1.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

Item two was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

Eighty-one respondents provided an answer for item two. Responses to item two revealed

the number of years the respondents had taught an instrumental jazz ensemble. The

overall average number of years for respondents was 12. Group I respondents averaged

approximately 12 years. Group II respondents averaged approximately 11 years, and

Group III respondents averaged approximately 13 years.

31

Item three was answered by all respondents. Questionnaire item three responses

(N = 183) indicated that the primary instrument for 63.4% of total respondents to be a

brass instrument, 24.7% woodwind, and 11.7% percussion. Fifteen respondents indicated

that they played a secondary instrument.

Item four was to be answered by all respondents. Item four delineated which

ensembles, courses, and clinics or workshops in which directors had participated. Of 183

respondents 66.1% indicated they had participated in a high school jazz band, 78.7% in a

college jazz band, and 51.4% in a local professional jazz group. Jazz theory/history

course participation was reported by 23.5% of respondents, improvisation course

participation by 20.8%, and workshop or clinic participation by 39.9%. (Four respondents

did not provide an answer to item four.)

A variety of additional experiences were specified. Seven respondents specified

studio work, performance with a military jazz ensemble, or local jazz band, blues band,

and rock band experience. One person stated none of the provided criteria was applicable,

and one noted only receiving jazz experience in a concert setting. Another respondent

wrote jazz was performed in marching and concert band settings. One stated tubas were

not afforded an opportunity to play in jazz bands, and one participated in a jazz camp for

experience. Two directors noted no formal jazz training but enjoyed listening to the

music. One attended jazz festivals and competitions for experience, and one had taken

applied jazz lessons. One noted attendance at jazz majors’ recitals, and one stated

experience gained during student teaching.

32

Table 2

Participation of Directors in Jazz Related Activities

Jazz Activity

Group

High School

Jazz Ens.

College Jazz Ens.

Local or

Prof. Group

Jazz

Theory/History

Improvisation

Course

Jazz

Workshops/Clinics

I

60.3%

69.0%

37.9%

24.1%

12.1%

13.8%

II

60.0%

80.0%

49.2%

23.1%

20.0%

43.1%

III

78.3%

86.6%

67.0%

23.3%

31.6%

61.6%

Item five was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

In answering item five, directors (n = 87) checked the activity they felt most prepared

them to teach an instrumental jazz ensemble. Respondents most often chose participation

in a college jazz band (58.6%), followed by participation in a high school jazz band

(23.0%). One noted the best preparation was provided through private study with a jazz

teacher. Three respondents felt listening was important for preparation. One viewed

student need as the best preparation. Hands-on-experience, exposure to good groups, and

college marching band were also listed as other methods of preparation. Two respondents

felt the student internship provided preparation, and two marked instrumental lessons

during their music coursework as valuable. One noted a great interest in jazz as

preparation to teach an instrumental jazz ensemble.

33

Table 3

Jazz Band Directors’ Preparation to Teach an Instrumental Jazz Ensemble

Categories

Group I

(n = 14)

Group II

(n = 23)

Group III

(n = 50)

Total

(n = 87)

High school jazz band

35.7%

17.4%

22.0%

23.0%

College jazz band

42.8%

56.5%

64.0%

58.6%

Local/professional group

28.5%

26.1%

16.0%

20.7%

Jazz theory/history

7.1%

0.0%

1.0%

6.9%

Improvisation courses

0.0%

4.3%

1.2%

8.0%

Jazz workshops/clinics

7.1%

8.7%

20.0%

14.9%

Other

7.1%

21.7%

20.0%

18.4%

None

7.1%

8.7%

0.0%

3.4%

Item six was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

Item six was structured to identify the number of jazz related professional development

activities in which the band director participated during the 2008-09 school year. The

answers ranged from 0 to 7 activities across 83 respondents. Four people did not respond

34

to item six. One respondent had presented at two and participated in five professional

development events for jazz. One stated that not many jazz professional development

activities were offered.

Table 4

Number of Jazz Related Professional Development Activities

Number of Activities

Frequency of Respondents

0

51

1

10

2

12

3

6

4

2

5

1

6

0

7

1

Item seven was answered by all respondents. For item seven, 45.9% of 183

respondents cited improvisational skills as the professional development opportunity they

35

felt would best prepare them to teach a jazz ensemble at their school. Scheduling

rehearsals for multiple ensembles (28.9%) and jazz pedagogy (28.3%) were the next most

commonly listed choices. Four percent of all respondents noted other professional

development needs. One stated the need for a workshop on the progression of the

program. Other directors noted beginning a jazz program (n = 2), instrumentation (n = 1),

jazz pedagogy (n = 1), techniques for motivating students (n = 1), scheduling for

administrators (n = 1), and priority scheduling for music (n = 1) as needs for jazz

professional development activities.

36

Table 5

Preparation Needed to Teach a Jazz Ensemble

Professional Development Opportunity

All

Respondents

(N = 183)

Group I

(n = 59)

Group II

(n = 64)

Group III

(n = 60)

Jazz pedagogy

28.3%

22.0%

26.6%

38.3%

Jazz theory

16.9%

20.3%

10.9%

20.0%

Improvisation skills

45.9%

47.5%

40.6%

50.0%

Scheduling

28.9%

33.9%

35.9%

16.6%

Organization

21.3%

25.4%

25.0%

13.3%

Other

4.4%

6.8%

4.7%

1.6%

None

4.4%

5.1%

4.7%

3.0%

Item eight was to be answered by all respondents. Questionnaire item eight

revealed 21.8% of those surveyed were past members of the International Association of

Jazz Educators (IAJE). A small percentage (8.3%) of Group I respondents reported past

37

membership in IAJE. A larger percentage (13.8%) of Group II respondents reported past

membership in IAJE. The largest percentage of past membership (43.3%) was found in

Group III.

School Curriculum Offerings for Jazz Instruction

Survey item nine was to be answered by all respondents. For item nine the

respondents indicated how many band students were enrolled in each grade level of the

band programs. Twenty-nine respondents did not answer item nine according to the

directions. Eight provided no response. The mean numbers of students in each grade level

of band programs is provided in Table 6.

Item ten was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

Survey item 10 concerned the types of ensembles offered by the school’s music program.

Overall, 14 respondents reported offering a jazz combo, 75 offered a jazz band, and 8

offered a studio laboratory band. In Group I (n = 14) respondents reported 35.7% offered

a jazz combo while 71.4% offered a jazz band. No band program in this group offered a

studio laboratory band or other types of ensembles. Group II (n = 23) respondents

reported 13.0% of the schools offered a jazz combo, 78.3% offered a jazz band, and

17.4% offered a studio laboratory band. In Group III (n = 50) 12.0% offered a jazz

combo, 94.0% offered a jazz band, 12.0% offered a studio laboratory band, and 4.0%

marked other types of ensembles. However, of the two respondents that checked other

types of ensembles, these notations were made: “variance on the studio concept w/

available musicians” and “depends on school schedule/it changes each semester.” One

provided no response.

38

Table 6

Mean Numbers of Students in Each Grade Level of Band Programs

Grade Level

Group I

Group II

Group III

Total

7 12.0

n = 48

18.7

n = 38

51.3

n = 3

16.2

n = 89

8

8.8 n = 47

14.9 n = 43

29.2 n = 5

12.9 n = 95

9

8.3 n = 53

13.6 n = 54

28.4 n = 40

15.7 n = 147

10

7.2 n = 53

13.0 n = 54

26.3 n = 42

14.7 n = 149

11

6.2 n = 53

11.6 n = 54

24.0 n = 42

13.2 n = 149

12

5.2 n = 53

8.0 n = 54

19.4 n = 42

10.2 n = 149

Item 11 was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

Responses to item 11 indicated how the students were selected for participation in the

instrumental jazz organization(s) offered. In Group I (n = 14) 14.3% were by audition,

64.2% were placed by the director, 42.8% through interest, and 7.0% by other means.

Group II (n = 23) reported 30.4% were selected through audition, 43.5% by placement,

and 43.5% were selected through interest. Group III reported 46.0% were selected

through audition, 28.0% through placement, 48.0% were selected through interest, and

39

2.0% by other means. One respondent selected members based on instrumentation needs.

One provided no response.

Item 12 was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

For survey item 12 the respondents indicated the instrumentation for each jazz ensemble

offered in their music program. In Group II, 2 directors provided no response to item 12,

and 4 wrote an auxiliary percussionist was included in a jazz ensemble. In Group III, 4

had auxiliary percussionists and 1 included a vocalist. Detailed instrumentation for

ensembles provided by respondents is presented in Table 7.

40

Table 7

Instrumentation for Ensembles

Group I

Instrument

Jazz

combo(s)

(n = 5)

Standard jazz

band(s)

(n = 10)

Studio

laboratory band

(n = 0)

Other

(n = 0)

Saxophone

1.6 4.5 0.0 0.0

Trumpet

1.8 4.3 0.0 0.0

Trombone

1.0 3.4 0.0 0.0

Piano

0.6 1.1 0.0 0.0

Bass

0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0

Guitar

0.4 1.1 0.0 0.0

Drums

1.2 1.4 0.0 0.0

Other

clar. 0.2

tuba 0.2

flute 0.2 0.0 0.0

41

Table 7 (continued)

Instrumentation for Ensembles

Group II

Instrument

Jazz

combo(s)

(n = 3)

Standard jazz

band(s)

(n = 19)

Studio

laboratory band

(n = 3)

Other

(n = 0)

Saxophone

2.3 4.5 4.0 0.0

Trumpet

0.7 4.3 4.7 0.0

Trombone

1.0 3.4 3.0 0.0

Piano

0.7 0.8 0.7 0.0

Bass

1.3 1.0 1.0 0.0

Guitar

1.3 0.7 2.0 0.0

Drums

1.0 1.4 1.7 0.0

Other 0.0

euph 0.05

voice 0.05

flute 0.05

flute 1.0

clar 2.0

FH 0.3

euph 0.3

tuba 0.3

0.0

42

Table 7 (continued)

Instrumentation for Ensembles

Group III

Standard jazz

band(s)

Instrument

Jazz

combo(s)

(n = 6)

(n = 46)

(n = 3)

Studio

laboratory

band

(n = 5)

Other

(n = 0)

Saxophone

1.8

5.0

7.0

5.0

0.0

Trumpet

1.7

4.7

5.7

4.4

0.0

Trombone

1.7

4.2

4.7

4.0

0.0

Piano

1.2

1.1

1.3

1.0

0.0

Bass

1.0

1.1

1.0

1.2

0.0

Guitar

0.7

1.1

0.7

1.2

0.0

Drums

1.2

1.9

2.0

1.8

0.0

Other

0.0

flute 0.02

clar 0.02

FH 0.02

voice 0.02

0.0

flute 0.2

clar 0.2

euph 0.4

0.0

43

Item 13 was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

For survey item 13 participants responded as to whether or not academic credit was

offered for participation in any jazz ensemble. Credit was offered by 38.0% of all the

schools. One respondent did not provide an answer for item 13.

Table 8

Academic Credit Received

Group I

(n = 14)

Group II

(n = 23)

Group III

(n = 50)

Yes

21.4% 34.7% 56.0%

No

78.5% 65.2% 44.0%

Item 14 was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

For survey item 14 respondents were to indicate any jazz related courses taught during

the regular school day (not during the jazz ensemble rehearsal time). Eighty-seven

respondents provided information for item 14. Data indicated a minimal number of jazz

related courses taught during the school day. Group I directors (n = 14) did not report

teaching any jazz related courses during the regular school day. In Group II (n = 23) one

director stated that jazz theory was taught during basic theory class. One Group II

director provided no response. Fifty Group III respondents provided information for item

14. Two Group III schools noted teaching jazz theory during music theory class, and one

44

Group III director marked jazz history, theory, and improvisation as courses taught

outside of the regularly scheduled jazz ensemble rehearsal time.

Table 9

Percentage Teaching Jazz Related Courses During the School Day

Group I

(n = 14)

Group II

(n = 23)

Group III

(n = 50)

Overall

(n = 87)

Jazz History

0.0 0.0 2.0 1.1

Jazz Improvisation

0.0 0.0 4.0 2.3

Jazz Theory

0.0 4.3 4.0 3.4

Item 15 was to be answered by all respondents. For survey item 15 respondents

indicated jazz courses or ensembles they would like to add to their present jazz

instructional curriculum. In Groups I and II the jazz band was the most prevalent

response, while in Group III jazz improvisation was the most prevalent response. Seven

respondents did not provide an answer for item 15. Two respondents wrote “none” as

additions to the current curriculum. One director noted no additional time was available

to add to the current jazz instructional program. One director wanted jazz ensemble

rehearsals included as a part of the regular school day. One director included instrumental

techniques as a needed component for the jazz program. One director did not wish to add

an additional ensemble to the school’s current program due to current class load, and one

45

respondent stated that there was a need to include rhythm players in the jazz instructional

program. One director wished to have an inclusive course added for jazz history, theory,

and improvisation for interested students.

Table 10

Jazz Instructional Program Additions

Categories

Group I

(n = 62)

Group II

(n = 65)

Group III

(n = 60)

Jazz Band

48.3% 67.6% 30.0%

Jazz Combo

25.8% 10.5% 15.0%

Jazz History

9.6% 4.6% 5.0%

Jazz Theory

4.8% 4.6% 6.6%

Studio Lab Band

24.2% 20.0% 20.0%

Sectional Rehearsals

9.6% 10.5% 11.6%

Jazz Improvisation

6.4% 7.6% 31.6%

Private Lessons

20.9% 18.4% 16.6%

Other

0.0% 0.0% 5.0%

46

Rehearsal Scheduling and Performance Opportunities

Item 16 was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

Survey item 16 requested information concerning the semesters in which the jazz

ensemble was rehearsing. While Group I (n = 14) and Group II (n = 23) had a variety of

scheduling designs, the majority of Group III (n = 50) schools kept the jazz ensemble

organized and rehearsing during both the fall and spring semesters (see Table 11).

Overall, 50.6% of schools organized and rehearsed an instrumental jazz ensemble for the

fall and spring semesters. One director noted having “a few summer rehearsals.” Three

participants provided no response for item 16.

Table 11

Rehearsal Semesters

Group I

(n = 14)

Group II

(n = 23)

Group III

(n = 50)

Overall

(n = 87)

Spring only

35.7% 30.4% 28.0%

29.9%

Fall Only

7.1% 0.0% 2.0%

2.3%

Fall and Spring

35.7% 39.1% 60.0%

50.6%

Partial semesters

14.2% 30.4% 12.0%

17.2%

Item 17 was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

Survey item 17 inquired if the jazz ensemble rehearsed in the normal band rehearsal

47

space. Eighty-four directors responded to item 17. Four directors provided no response.

Seventy-five percent of schools did rehearse in the normal band rehearsal space. Group II

(n = 23) had the highest percentage at 78.2%, and the lowest rate yielded was from Group

I (n = 14) at 64.3%. Group III (n = 50) reported 72.0% of the jazz ensembles rehearsed in

the normal band rehearsal space. One director in Group III noted having a separate

rehearsal space for instrumental jazz ensemble.

Item 18 was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

Survey item 18 revealed the amount of time spent in rehearsals each week for each type

of ensemble (jazz combo, jazz band, and studio laboratory band). Nine respondents

provided weekly rehearsal times for jazz combo. The mean weekly rehearsal time was

201 minutes. Seventy-four respondents provided weekly rehearsal times for jazz band.

The mean weekly rehearsal time was 200 minutes. Five respondents provided weekly

rehearsal time for studio laboratory band. The mean weekly rehearsal time was 110

minutes.

48

Table 12

Rehearsal Time Per Week by School Size

Course

Group I Group II Group III

n

M n

M n

M

Jazz Combo

4

160

2

300

3

190

Jazz Band

9

141 19

161 46

227

Studio Laboratory Band

0 0 2

110 3

110

Item 19 was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

Survey item 19 concerned the utilization of sectional rehearsals within the instrumental

jazz ensembles. No programs in Group I included sectionals, 27.3% of Group II and

27.1% of Group III schools held jazz sectional rehearsals. Six directors noted practicing

in sectional rehearsals weekly, and 13 stated using them on occasion. Three participants

did not respond to item 19.

49

Table 13

Utilization of Sectional Rehearsals

Group I

(n = 13)

Group II

(n = 22)

Group III

(n = 48)

Overall

(n = 83)

Yes

0.0% 27.3% 27.1%

22.9%

No

100.0% 72.7% 75.0%

78.3%

Item 20 was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

Survey item 20 referred to the types and numbers of performances given by each of the

high school jazz ensembles. Directors chose from a list including contest/festival,

fundraiser, athletic events, formal concerts, public relations, and school functions. The

most prevalent response by all three groups was the formal concert (90.2%), while

athletic events yielded the lowest average (8.5%). One school did not provide any

performances, and three participants did not respond to item 20.

50

Table 14

Performances

Group I

(n = 12)

Group II

(n = 21)

Group III

(n = 49)

Overall

(n = 82)

Contest/Festival

33.3% 9.5% 42.9%

33.0%

Fundraisers

33.3% 4.8% 42.9%

31.7%

Athletic events

0.0% 9.5% 10.2%

8.5%

Formal Concert

100.0% 90.5% 87.8%

90.2%

Public relations

75.0% 62.0% 87.8%

79.2%

School Functions

50.0% 42.9% 57.1%

52.4%

Funding Sources and Available Equipment

Item 21 was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

For survey item 21 directors listed the annual budget for the instrumental jazz ensemble.

Group I averaged $209. Group II averaged $117, and Group III averaged $518. The most

frequent category for all three groups was $0 - $499.00. One school charged a $40 fee for

students who participated in a jazz ensemble, and of the respondents that stated having a

budget for the jazz ensemble, it was noted that the jazz ensemble budget was a part of the

overall band budget. Five directors provided no response.

51

Table 15

Jazz Ensemble Annual Budget

Group I

(n = 12)

Group II

(n = 21)

Group III

(n = 49)

Overall

(n = 87)

$0-$499

66.6% 85.7% 59.2%

63.2%

$500-$999

33.3% 9.5% 18.4%

17.2%

$1000+

0.0% 4.8% 22.4%

13.8%

Average Budget

$208 $117 $518

$349

Item 22 was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

Survey item 22 requested the participants check the funding sources for the school’s

instrumental jazz ensemble. Overall, the band booster organization’s budget was the most

prevalent response (79.8%). Student fees (34.5%) and donations (26.2%) were also

frequently selected by all respondents. All groups received operational funding from a

variety of sources. Four specifically wrote fundraising as a source of funds for the jazz

program, and one stated the director as a source of funding. Three directors provided no

response to this item.

52

Table 16

Funding Sources

Group I

(n = 13)

Group II

(n = 22)

Group III

(n = 49)

Overall

(n = 84)

Booster Budget

69.2% 77.2% 83.7%

79.8%

Student Fees

30.8% 18.1% 42.9%

34.5%

State Funds

7.7% 4.5% 10.2%

8.3%

Local Funds

15.4% 9.0% 22.4%

17.9%

Donations

30.8% 36.3% 20.4%

26.2%

Other

7.7% 13.6% 2.0%

6.0%

Item 23 was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

For survey item 23 respondents listed how many jazz ensemble and jazz combo music

compositions and arrangements were in the school’s music library. In reference to jazz

combo compositions the mode category was 0-49 with all schools averaging fewer than

15 compositions. For jazz band compositions the responses were more varied. While

Groups I and II still averaged less than 50 compositions, Group III averaged over 100

compositions.

53

Table 17

Percentage of Jazz Combo Compositions in Music Library

Group I

(n = 14)

Group II

(n = 23)

Group III

(n = 50)

Total

(n = 87)

0-49

92.9 100.0 88.0

91.9

50-99

7.1 0.0 10.0 6.9

100+

0.0 0.0 2.0 1.1

Table 18

Percentage of Jazz Band Compositions in Music Library

Group I

(n = 14)

Group II

(n = 23)

Group III

(n = 50)

Total

(n = 87)

0-49

71.4 82.6 28.0

49.4

50-99

7.1 4.3 24.0

16.1

100+

21.4 13.0 48.0

34.5

54

Item 24 was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

Survey item 24 inquired as to what related equipment is owned by the school music

program. Participants checked each item which was owned by the school from a list

containing: electric bass guitar, drum set, electric keyboard, jazz fronts (stands), risers,

upright bass, electric guitar, sound equipment, amplifiers, and other. Four noted having

auxiliary percussion instruments. Three stated having school owned horns such as a

baritone saxophone, tenor saxophone, and trombone for use by the jazz ensemble. One

director noted having an electric bass, and one stated having an acoustic piano. One

respondent did not provide a response for item 24. (See Table 19 for responses to item

24.)

Item 25 was to be answered by directors who currently instruct a jazz ensemble.

Survey item 25 asked the participants to list which piece(s) of equipment were needed for

the jazz ensemble. Overall, sound equipment was the most needed. An electric bass,

piano, pickups for an upright bass, trombones, more music, and more students were

specifically noted as needs by six individual directors. Five provided no response. (See

Table 20 for responses to item 25.)

55

Table 19

Percentages of School Owned Equipment for the Jazz Ensemble

Group I

(n = 14)

Group II

(n = 22)

Group III

(n = 50)

Overall

(n = 86)

Electric Bass

28.5 50.0 48.0

45.3

Drum Set

92.9 91.0 94.0

93.0

Electric Keyboard

64.3

63.6

88.0

77.9

Jazz Fronts

7.1 9.0 32.0

22.1

Risers

0.0 18.2 24.0

18.6

Upright Bass

21.4 22.7 52.0

39.5

Electric Guitar

14.3 18.2 18.0

17.4

Sound Equipment

57.1 50.0 88.0

73.3

Amplifiers

64.3 59.0 92.0

79.1

Other

0.0 9.0 10.0 8.1

56

Table 20

Percentages of Needed Equipment for the Jazz Ensemble

Group I

(n = 13)

Group II

(n = 20)

Group III

(n = 44)

Overall

(n = 77)

Electric Bass

15.4 30.0 9.1

15.6

Drum Set

23.1 15.0 18.2

18.2

Electric Keyboard

15.4 20.0 11.4

14.3

Jazz Fronts

38.5 20.0 22.7

24.7

Risers

15.4 15.0 20.5

18.2

Upright Bass

7.7 25.0 13.6

15.6

Electric Guitar

7.7 20 .0 2.3 7.8

Sound Equipment

46.2 20.0 31.8

31.2

Amplifiers

23.1 15.0 15.9

16.9

Other 0.0 0.0

11.4

6.5

57

Question One

Research question one was stated as follows: “What is the relationship between

director preparation and the number of current high school jazz bands?” Director

preparation of those currently operating a jazz ensemble was compared with the

preparation of directors not currently operating a jazz ensemble. The following tables

provide a detailed view of degrees earned by years of teaching for each school size group.

58

Table 21

Highest Degree Earned by Years of Teaching a Jazz Ensemble

Group I

Years

Bachelors Masters Masters+30 Specialist Doctorate Totals

0

26 17 0 2 1 46

1-5

3 2 0 0 0 5

6-10

0 2 1 0 0 3

11-15

0 0 0 0 0 0

16-20

0 0 0 0 0 0

>20

1 2 1 0 0 4

Totals

30 23 2 2 1 58

59

Table 21 (continued)

Highest Degree Earned by Years of Teaching a Jazz Ensemble

Group II

Years

Bachelors Masters Masters+30 Specialist Doctorate Totals

0

19 21 3 1 1 45

1-5

1 7 0 0 0 8

6-10

1 1 0 0 0 2

11-15

0 4 0 0 0 4

16-20

0 3 0 0 0 3

>20

1 2 0 0 0 3

Totals

22 38 3 1 1 65

60

Table 21 (continued)

Highest Degree Earned by Years of Teaching a Jazz Ensemble

Group III

Years

Bachelors Masters Masters+30 Specialist Doctorate Totals

0

7 7 0 0 0 14

1-5

6 4 0 0 0 10

6-10

7 3 3 1 1 15

11-15

0 5 0 0 0 5

16-20

1 1 2 0 0 4

>20

2 7 1 0 2 12

Totals

23 27 6 1 3 60

Tables 21, 22, and 23 provide information on the relationship between highest

degree earned, the number of years of experience teaching a jazz ensemble, and incidence

of public school jazz bands for each school size (Groups I, II, and III). These tables

suggest that incidence of jazz instruction may be more dependent on school size than

director preparation. Among Group III schools, 76.7% of the directors were involved

61

with jazz instruction compared to 30.8% for Group II schools and 20.7% for Group I

schools. This observation was explored in greater detail under research question 2.

Table 22

Combined Groups: Highest Degree Earned by Years of Teaching a Jazz Ensemble

Years

Bachelors Masters Masters+30 Specialist Doctorate Totals

0

52 45 3 3 2 105

1-5

10 13 0 0 0 23

6-10

8 6 4 1 1 20

11-15

0 9 0 0 0 9

16-20

1 4 2 0 0 7

>20

4 11 2 0 2 19

Totals

75 88 11 4 5 183

With regard to Table 22, it is of interest to note that 105 out of the 183 (57.4%)

schools surveyed offered no jazz instruction. It is also interesting to note that among

schools offering jazz instruction 19 of 78 (24.4%) have directors who have been teaching

jazz ensembles for more than 20 years.

62

Table 23

Highest Degree Earned by Incidence of Jazz Bands

Jazz Band

Bachelors Masters Masters+30 Specialist Doctorate Totals

No

52 45 3 3 2 105

Yes

23 43 8 1 3 78

Totals

75 88 11 4 5 183

Table 23 features a comparison between director degree preparation and incidence

of high school jazz bands. Since the frequencies observed for directors with training

beyond the master’s level are low, these columns of Table 23 should be combined to

facilitate testing the hypothesis that there is no relationship between highest degree

earned and jazz instruction. Consequently, Table 24 has been reduced to three levels of

degree preparation.

63

Table 24

Combined Groups: Three Levels of Degree Preparation

Jazz Band

Bachelors

Masters

Masters+30

Totals

No

52

45

8

105

Yes

23

43

12

78

Totals

75

88

20

183

The Chi-Square analysis of categorical data test procedure was used to analyze

the data shown in Table 24. The resulting value of the Chi-Square statistic was 8.33 (p =

.0155, df = 2). Using a .05 level of significance, it is reasonable to conclude that the

highest degree earned is related to whether or not a school has a jazz band. More

specifically, 30.7% of the directors holding a Bachelors degree were located in schools

with a jazz band compared to 50.9% of the directors with earned degrees beyond the

Bachelors level. It should be noted, however, that the percentage of Bachelors degree

directors may be higher in the smaller schools that are less likely to have a jazz band.

This possibility is explored in Table 25.

64

Table 25

Highest Degree Earned by School Size

Group

Bachelors Bachelors+ Totals

I

30 28 58

II

22 43 65

III

23 37 60

Totals

75 108 183

A Chi-Square analysis of the categorical data presented in Table 25 resulted in a

value of 4.26 (p = .118, df = 2). Consequently, it is not reasonable to conclude school

size and incidence of Bachelors degrees among band directors is related.

65

Table 26

Cross-Classification of Directors’ Jazz Participation Activities with Years of Jazz

Teaching Experience (N = 186)

Item 4 Categories

Years Experience

HSJE

CJE L/PG JT/HC IC W/C

None

52 68 38 18 12 31

< 1

9 10 8 2 2 4

1-5

21 16 11 10 8 13

6-10

13 20 13 6 6 12

11-15

6 8 6 1 1 4

16-20

5 5 4 1 2 4

> 20

15 17 14 5 7 15

Totals

121 144 94 43 38 83

Table 26 presents a display of band director participation in various jazz activities

by years of teaching experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that of the 121

directors who participated in high school jazz ensemble activities, 69 (57.0%) are

66

currently teaching a jazz ensemble. Similar percentages for the other areas of

participation include: college jazz ensemble (52.8%), local/professional group (59.6%),

jazz theory/history coursework (58.1%), improvisation coursework (68.4%), and

workshops/clinics (62.7%). It should also be noted, however, that the percentages of

band directors associated with these categories of participation varied from 77.4% (144

out of 186) for college jazz ensemble to 20.4% (38 out of 186) for improvisation courses.

Associated results for the other areas were as follows: high school jazz ensemble

(65.1%), local and/or professional group (50.5%), jazz history and/or theory courses

(23.1%), and workshops and/or clinics (44.6%). (Note: Since each respondent could

check any of item four categories, statistical inference based on comparisons between

categories would not be appropriate.) Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of this table is

the relatively high percentage of respondents who had participated in high school jazz

ensemble and college jazz ensemble type activities. Therefore, these data suggest that

director preparation through participation in college jazz ensemble and high school jazz

ensemble activities may indeed have a bearing on the presence and/or absence of high

school jazz bands.

In item five of the survey, respondents were asked to check the one area that

“most prepared you to teach an instrumental jazz ensemble.” These responses are

summarized in Table 27. It is interesting to note that 51 of the 91 (56.0%) respondents

felt that their college jazz ensemble activity was the most helpful for teaching a jazz

ensemble. It should also be noted that even though each respondent was asked to check

67

just one area, several checked more than one area thereby resulting in a total 115

responses instead of 91.

Table 27

Cross-Tabulation of Directors’ Opinions of the Jazz Experiences that Most Prepared

Them to Teach a Jazz Ensemble with Years of Jazz Teaching Experience (n = 91)

Item 5 Categories

Years

Experience

HSJE

CJE L/PG JT/HC IC W/C

< 1

0 6 0 0 0 0

1-5

8 10 4 2 3 4

6-10

3 13 4 2 1 3

11-15

3 6 1 0 1 0

16-20

2 4 1 0 0 0

> 20

4 12 8 2 2 6

Totals

20 51 18 6 7 13

68

Question Two

Research question two was as follows: “What is the relationship between school

size and the jazz instruction provided for students?” Table 28 provides a summary of

responses by group and years of experience. Since research question 2 is directed toward

the presence/absence of jazz instruction in relation to school size, the results presented in

Table 28 have been summarized in Table 29 for further statistical analysis.

Table 28

Number of Years Teaching an Instrumental Jazz Ensemble

Group

Years Experience

I

II III

Totals

0

46 45 14 105

1-5

5 8 10 23

6-10

3 2 15 20

11-15

0 4 5 9

16-20

0 3 4 7

>20

4 3 12 19

Totals

58 65 60 183

69

As noted during the discussion of findings pertaining to research question one,

Table 29 shows that 76.7% of the directors from Group III schools were involved with

jazz instruction compared to 30.8% of the directors from Group II schools and 20.7%

from Group I schools. Chi-Square analysis of these data yielded a value of 43.45 (p <

.0001, df = 2). This finding provides compelling evidence, at the .0001 level of

significance, that school size is related to provision for jazz instruction. Further Chi-

Square analysis comparing Group I and Group II schools showed no evidence of a

difference in the percentage of schools that offered jazz instruction (χ2 = 1.63, p = .2006,

df = 1). Based on this evidence, it appears reasonable to conclude that Group III schools

are more likely to offer jazz instruction.

Table 29

Prevalence of Jazz Band Instruction by School Size

Group

Jazz Band

I

II III

Totals

No

46 45 14 105

Yes

12 20 46 78

Totals

58 65 60 183

70

Table 30 provides a breakdown of the type of jazz instruction offered among

those schools that teach jazz. Jazz band is clearly the preferred ensemble with a combined

percentage of 74.7%. Individual group percentages were 66.7, 72.0, and 78.0 for Group

I, II, and III schools respectively. Since the Chi-Square analyses for Table 29 showed that

Group III schools are more likely to offer jazz instruction, a similar analysis was

conducted for Table 30 to compare the proportion of Group III schools offering jazz band

instruction with the combined proportion of Group I and II schools that also offer jazz

band instruction. Results were not significant (χ2 = 0.80, p = .3734, df = 1).

71

Table 30

Years of Teaching Experience by School Size

Group

Jazz Instruction

I

II III

Totals

Jazz Combo

5 3 6 14

Jazz Band

10 18 46* 74

Studio Lab

0 4 6 10

Other

0 0 1 1

Totals

15 25 59 99

*One Group III school reported the existence of two jazz bands. This school was counted

once in the jazz band category.

72

Question Three

Research question three was as follows: “What is the relationship between

amount of practice time and number of performances among high school jazz bands?”

Table 31 shows that there is very little relationship between weekly practice time and

number of annual performances. The one exception is public relations performances.

Weekly practice time is positively correlated with the number of public relations

performances. Perhaps these data reflect the importance that band directors place on

practice and preparation as opposed to the overall number of performances. Evidently

directors value public relations performances for the high school jazz bands.

73

Table 31

Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient: Amount of Weekly Practice with

Number of Annual Performances by Type of Performance

Activity

r p

Contest/Festival (n = 28)

-0.081 .6826

Fundraisers (n = 26)

.046 .8240

Athletic Events (n = 9)

.328 .3887

Formal Concerts (n = 77)

.133 .2497

Public Relations* (n = 67)

.337 .0053

School Fundraisers (n = 43)

.251 .1040

* p < .01

74

Question Four

Research question four was as follows: “What is the relationship between funding

and equipment for high school jazz bands?” Tables 32 and 33 provide information on this

question.

Table 32

Annual Budget in Dollars by School Size

Group

Budget I

II III

0 – 499

10 20 31

500 - 1000

4 3 13

Over 1000

0 0 6

75

Table 33

Summary of Equipment Owned by Level of Funding

Group I

Level of Funding

Equipment

0 - 499

500 - 1000 Over 1000

Electric Bass Guitar

3 1 0

Drum Set

9 4 0

Electric Keyboard

6 3 0

Jazz Fronts

0 1 0

Risers

0 0 0

Upright Bass

2 1 0

Electric Guitar

1 1 0

Sound Equipment

6 2 0

Amplifiers

6 3 0

Other

2 0 0

76

Table 33 (continued) Summary of Equipment Owned by Level of Funding

Group II

Level of Funding

Equipment

0 - 499

500 - 1000 Over 1000

Electric Bass Guitar

10 1 0

Drum Set

17 3 0

Electric Keyboard

11 3 0

Jazz Fronts

1 1 0

Risers

1 3 0

Upright Bass

4 1 0

Electric Guitar

4 0 0

Sound Equipment

8 3 0

Amplifiers

10 3 0

Other

1 1 0

77

Table 33 (continued) Summary of Equipment Owned by Level of Funding

Group III

Level of Funding

Equipment

0 - 499

500 - 1000 Over 1000

Electric Bass Guitar

13 8 3

Drum Set

28 13 5

Electric Keyboard

28 11 5

Jazz Fronts

9 4 3

Risers

7 4 1

Upright Bass

16 6 4

Electric Guitar

7 1 1

Sound Equipment

28 10 6

Amplifiers

29 11 6

Other

3 0 2

78

Table 32 provides information on level of funding by school group, and Table 33

examines equipment owned by level of funding. (Note: Since each respondent could

check any of the ten categories, statistical inference based on comparisons between

categories would not be appropriate.) Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of this data are

the relatively high percentage of respondents who report school owned drum sets, electric

keyboards, sound equipment, and amplifiers regardless of school size or level of funding.

When comparing across groups, directors at schools with a funding level of $0-499 (n =

61) 70.5% reported owning a drum set, 73.8% reported owning an electric keyboard,

68.9% reported owning sound equipment, and 73.8% owned amplifiers. It is interesting

to note that directors at schools reporting in the $500-999 range (n = 20) 100% reported

owning a drum set, 85% reported owning an electric keyboard, 75% reported owning

sound equipment, and 85% owned an amplifier. Only a small portion (12%) of Group III

school directors (n = 50) responded with budgets in excess of $1000. Of those directors

at schools in Group III, 83.3% reported owning a drum set and electric keyboard and

100% reported owning sound equipment and amplifiers. Evidently, drum sets, electric

keyboards, sound equipment, and amplifiers are priority items for jazz band directors

regardless of school size or level of funding.

79

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the study was to survey the instrumental jazz ensembles of

Alabama’s public high schools during the 2008-09 academic year. Specifically, the study

included the preparation of the director, school curriculum offerings for jazz instruction,

rehearsal scheduling and performance opportunities, and funding sources and available

equipment. This study was considered useful to instrumental music educators, school

administrators, and curriculum coordinators for use in instructional planning for the arts

and the continued development of jazz band programs in the public high schools of

Alabama.

This study surveyed the status of jazz ensemble programs in the public high

schools of Alabama. A data gathering instrument was used to answer the following

questions relevant to jazz ensemble programs.

1. What is the relationship between director preparation and the number of current

high school jazz bands?

2. What is the relationship between school size and the jazz instruction provided for students?

80

3. What is the relationship between amount of practice time and number of performances among high school jazz bands? 4. What is the relationship between funding and equipment for high school jazz bands? The general methodology of the study was a quantitative, cross-sectional survey

design. This methodology was selected to provide a numeric description of the trends

found in jazz programs by studying the population of Alabama band directors. The

survey was an easily implemented instrument for a larger population; it provided quick

turnaround in data collection; and valid inferences could be made due to the consistency

of the instrument across participants (Creswell, 2003). Director preparation, school

curriculum offerings for jazz instruction, rehearsal scheduling and performance

opportunities, and funding sources and available equipment were found as important

variables in the related literature and were investigated.

A response rate of 59.4% was achieved. The major disadvantage associated with a

questionnaire was the percentage of respondents, which often have low response rates

(Roberts, 2004). A return rate of 70%--or 233 responses--was desired for validation of

the study.

Conclusions

The first research question was concerned with the relationship between director preparation and the number of current high school jazz bands. The data suggested that

incidence of jazz instruction may have been more dependent on school size than director

preparation. Among Group III schools, 76.7% of the directors were involved with jazz

81

instruction compared to 30.8% for Group II schools and 20.7% for Group I schools. Of

the 183 schools surveyed, 105 schools (57.4%) offered no jazz instruction.

Among schools offering jazz instruction, 19 of 78 (24.4%) have directors who

have been teaching jazz ensembles for more than 20 years. The college jazz ensemble

activity was listed by 56% of respondents as the most helpful experience for teaching a

high school jazz ensemble. The data suggested that director preparation through

participation in college jazz ensemble and high school jazz ensemble activities may

indeed have a bearing on the presence of a high school jazz band.

Research question two was concerned with the relationship between school size

and the presence of the jazz band. The data provided compelling evidence, at the .0001

level of significance, that school size is related to provision for jazz instruction. Further

Chi-Square analysis comparing Group I and Group II schools showed no evidence of a

difference in the percentage of schools that offered jazz instruction (χ2 = 1.63, p = .2006,

df = 1). Based on this evidence, it appears reasonable to conclude that Group III schools

are more likely to offer jazz instruction.

The third research question concerned the relationship between the amount of

practice time and the number of performances among high school jazz bands. There was

very little relationship between weekly practice time and number of annual performances.

The one exception was public relations performances. Weekly practice time was

positively correlated with the number of public relations performances. Perhaps these

82

data reflect the importance that individual band directors have placed on public

performances. The average amount of practice time was approximately 200 minutes each

week for jazz bands and jazz combos.

The final research question concerned the relationship of level of funding and

equipment provided for high school jazz bands. Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of

this data were the relatively high percentage of respondents who reported school owned

drum sets, electric keyboards, sound equipment, and amplifiers regardless of school size

or level of funding.

Recommendations for Further Research

On the basis of the data gathered with this survey instrument, the writer

recommends:

1. That a study be undertaken to thoroughly investigate the relationship between

school size and its relation to provision for jazz instruction.

2. That a study be designed of the activities and practices of the Alabama Music

Educators Association in order to determine what, if any, effect it has on the

promotion and existence of high school jazz bands in Alabama.

3. That a study be conducted to determine to what degree a director’s past

participation in high school and college jazz bands effects the occurrence of the

director implementing a high school jazz band.

4. That this study, or one of similar nature, be replicated in other states in order to

ascertain a more comprehensive understanding of the high school jazz bands.

83

Recommendations for Curriculum Coordinators, Administrators,

and Music Teacher Educators

On the basis of the data gathered with this survey instrument, the writer

recommends:

1. That the Alabama Department of Education develop standards that contain

guidelines for future instrumental music educators that would provide a means to

organize and maintain a high school jazz band.

2. That school administrators be provided an awareness of the importance of

additional jazz curriculum offerings for students during the regular school day

such as theory, history, and improvisation courses (not to be taught during the

jazz ensemble rehearsal time).

3. That music teacher educators instill in undergraduate and graduate music

education students the need for providing various instrumental opportunities for

pupils so they might participate in high school and college jazz ensembles which

may lead to the continuation and development of high school jazz ensemble

programs.

4. That music teacher educators encourage those currently in music education

programs to participate in the college jazz ensemble, since the research suggests

that directors who have participated in a college jazz ensemble have a higher

occurrence of a high school jazz ensemble.

84

Summary

Jazz is a uniquely American art form which has become part of the instrumental

music curriculum at many high schools across the United States. This study suggests that

in Alabama, school size - more than any other factor - influences the existence of the high

school jazz band. Larger high schools in Alabama had a much higher occurrence of an

organized high school jazz band. Surely band directors and school administrators at

medium and small-sized high schools understand the value of teaching this uniquely

American art form through the organization and cultivation of a high school jazz band.

Music students are individual in their talents and aptitudes within the musical art

form. Traditionally, what has distinguished jazz development from other styles of music

is its individualistic nature. Jazz music requires the performer(s) to include some part of

self in the interpretation and presentation of the musical work. To perform jazz music any

other way is to cheat the audience (Kuzmich & Bash, 1984).

The absence of a high school jazz band is the acceptance of an incomplete

instrumental music program. This study reveals that less than half of the Alabama high

schools in this study offer students the opportunity to participate in a jazz band. In those

schools which do offer a jazz band experience to students, the vast majority of directors

participated in high school and college jazz bands when they were in school. Possibly

these directors were more likely to work at larger high schools which were able to fund

the additional band activity, valued the jazz band’s promotional potential for the high

school, expected a jazz band to be a part of the curriculum, and valued the creative outlet

which a high school jazz band uniquely offers to students.

85

REFERENCES

Adderly, C., Kennedy, M., & Berz, W. (2003). A home away from home. The world of

the high school music classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(3), 190-206.

Alabama Music Educators Association. (2006). Alabama Bandmasters Association

directory. Florence, AL. Andrews, F.M. (1970). Goals and objectives for music education. Music Educators

Journal, 57(4), 23-26. Baker, D. (1981). Jazz pedagogy. Bloomington, IN: Frangipani Press. Berry, J. (1971). High school jazz bands-the state of the art. The Instrumentalist, 26(4), 18-20. Berry, L. (1985). Historical analysis of the development of jazz and jazz education in the

state of Alabama. (IAJE Jazz Research Papers, Vol. 4). Manhattan, KS: IAJE Publications.

Bessom, M.E., Tatarunis, A.M., & Forcucci, S.L. (1974). Teaching music in today’s

secondary schools: A creative approach to contemporary music education. New

York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston, Inc. Blocher, L. (2000). The times are changing. Teaching Music, 7(4), 30-37. Bollinger, D.F. (1979). Band director’s complete handbook. West Nyack, New York: Parker Publishing Company, Inc.

86

Brittin, R.V. (1997). The status of selected instrumental ensembles in Texas schools.

(Doctoral dissertation, University of the Pacific, 1997). Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Ferguson, T. (1976). The jazz-rock ensemble. Port Washington, New York: Alfred Publishing Co. Ferriano, F., Jr. (1974). A study of the school jazz ensemble in American music education. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1974). Fisher, L.F. (1981). The rationale for and development of jazz courses for the college music education curriculum, 1981-1982. (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1981). Goodrich, A.M. (2005). Inside a high school jazz band. (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 2005). Goodrich, A. (2007). Peer mentoring in a high school jazz ensemble. Journal of Research

in Music Education, 55(2), 94-114.

Gravetter, F.J., & Wallnau, L.B. (2004). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (6th ed.).

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning Inc. Grimes, W.F. (1988). Conducting and rehearsal techniques of selected secondary school

jazz ensemble directors, Volumes I and II. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music, 1988).

Henry, R.E. (1981). The jazz ensemble: A guide to technique. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Hinckley, J. (2000). Why vision 2020? Music Educators Journal, 86(5), 21-24, 66.

87

Hinton, W.H. (1957). A study of bands in the white schools of Alabama. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, 1957). Hoffer, C.R. (1991). Teaching music in the secondary schools (4th ed). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Isbell, D. (2007). Popular music and the public school music curriculum. Update:

Applications of Research in Music Education, 26, 53-63. DOI:

10.1177/87551233070260010106.

Jones, H.E. (2005). Jazz in Oklahoma music teacher education. (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Oklahoma, 2005).

Jones, L.E. (1986). The status of band programs in the public secondary schools of Alabama, 1984-1985. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, 1986). Kelly, S.N., & Weelden, K.V. (2004). Connecting meaningful music and experiences in a

multicultural, multimusical classroom. Music Educators Journal, 90(3), 35-39. Knox, D.C. (1996). Status of jazz education in preparation of music educators in

Alabama colleges and universities. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, 1996).

Kowall, B.C. (1966). Perspectives in music education: Source book III. Washington D.C.: Music Educators National Conference. Kuzmich, J., & Bash, L. (1984). Complete guide to instrumental jazz instruction:

Techniques for developing a successful school jazz program. West Nyack, NY: Parker Publishing Company, Inc.

88

Lasko, E. (2008). Serving jazz educators is the aim of new MENC initiative. Reston, VA:

MENC. Retrieved from http://www.menc.org/news/view/serving-jazz-educators-

is-the-aim-of-new-menc-initiative

Luty, B. (1982). Jazz education’s struggle for acceptance (part II). Music Educators

Journal, 69(4), 49-50, 64. Mack, K.D. (1993). The status of jazz programs in selected secondary schools of Indiana, 1991-1992. (Doctoral dissertation, Ball State University, 1993). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 59, AAT 9319884. Madsen, C.K. (2000). Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the future of music

education. Reston, Virginia: MENC. McCurdy, R.C. (1983). Development and evaluation of a comprehensive guide for the

jazz educator. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1983). Morgan, H.N. (1955). Music in American education: Music education source book

number two. Chicago, Illinois: Music Educators National Conference. Morton, J. (2006). Alabama State Department of Education. Alabama course of study: Arts education. Montgomery, AL. Payne, J.R., Sr. (1973). Jazz education in the secondary schools of Louisiana: Implications for teacher education. (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern State University of Louisiana, 1973). Roach, R. (1998). Speaking on jazz education: Ellis Marsalis. Black Issues in Higher

Education, 14(24), 24-26.

89

Roberts, C.M. (2004). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to

planning, writing, and defending your dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc. Scagnoli, J.R. (1978). The status of band programs in public senior high schools in the state of New York. (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1978). Senate Judiciary. (1987). Senate Concurrent Resolution 23 (S.CON.RES.23. December 4 1987). Retrieved June 18, 2007, from http:/thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d100f:S.CON.RES.23. Singleton, I.C. & Anderson, S.V. (1969). Music in secondary schools (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Skinner, D. (1986). The little big band in the curriculum. Jazz Educators Journal, 18(4), 24-25. State of Alabama Department of Education. (2008). Enrollment by System, School, Sex,

and Race Public Data Report. Retrieved November 3,2008 from http://www.alsde.edu/PublicDataReports/Default.aspx

Tirro, F. (1977). Jazz: A history. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Tolson, J. (2001). Historical perspectives and a case for inclusion: Why teach jazz?

Bluegrass Music News, December, 8-14. Wheeler, D.L. (1992). Jazz and academe: From hostility to harmony. The Chronicle of

Higher Education, 38(27), A5.

90

Wiggins, I.T. (1997). An assessment of the status of jazz music education in the public high schools of North Carolina: A foundation for curriculum revision in higher education. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1997). UMI 9818241.

91

APPENDIX A

OFFICE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL AND INFORMATION LETTERS

92

93

94

POSTCARD

REMINDER For a research study entitled

“Instrumental Jazz Ensemble Programs in Alabama High Schools”

Please accept the recently received invitation to participate in the study regarding the jazz ensemble programs found in the public high schools of Alabama. You

can expect to find the study’s information useful to instrumental music educators, school administrators, and curriculum

coordinators for use in instructional planning for the arts and the continued development of jazz ensemble programs in Alabama.

Should you have any questions about this study, please contact Lloyd Jones at jonesll@auburn.edu or Dr.

Kimberly Walls at kim.walls@auburn.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant,

you may contact the Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334) 844-5966 or email at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT

OF MUSIC EDUCATION IN ALABAMA.

95

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE

96

97

98

99

100

APPENDIX C

SCHOOL GROUPINGS

101

Group I Schools

School 9-12 Enrollment District

RA Hubbard HS 82 Lawrence County

Vina HS 106 Franklin County

Brilliant HS 120 Marion County

Autaugaville HS 123 Autauga County

Waterloo HS 124 Lauderdale County

Parrish HS 129 Walker County

Notasulga HS 136 Macon County

Hubbertville School 137 Fayette County

Marengo HS 138 Marengo County

Lynn HS 138 Winston County

Verbena HS 146 Chilton County

Hazlewood HS 147 Lawrence County

Meek HS 147 Winston County

Marion County HS 150 Marion County

Brantley HS 153 Crenshaw County

South Lamar School 157 Lamar County

Florala HS 163 Covington County

Sweet Water HS 166 Marengo County

Valley Head HS 169 Dekalb County

Hackleburg School 172 Marion County

102

Georgiana HS 174 Butler County

Ragland HS 180 St. Clair County

Berry HS 183 Fayette County

Gaston HS 189 Etowah County

Collinsville HS 195 Dekalb County

Addison HS 195 Winston County

Cherokee HS 202 Colbert County

Millry HS 202 Washington County

Loachapoka HS 211 Lee County

Greensboro Public Schools 212 Hale County

Asbury School 212 Marshall County

Keith School 218 Dallas County

Sulligent School 219 Lamar County

Isabella HS 220 Chilton County

Cottonwood HS 220 Houston County

Zion Chapel HS 221 Coffee County

Hatton HS 236 Lawrence County

Falkville HS 237 Morgan County

Red Level HS 240 Covington County

Flomaton HS 245 Escambia County

Red Bay HS 245 Franklin County

103

Pickens County HS 245 Pickens County

Horseshoe Bend HS 249 Tallapoosa County

Cold Springs HS 250 Cullman County

Houston County HS 252 Houston County

Woodland HS 253 Randolph County

Highland Home HS 254 Crenshaw County

Tanner HS 254 Limestone County

Thorsby HS 255 Chilton County

Oakman HS 257 Walker County

New Brockton HS 261 Coffee County

Phil Campbell HS 263 Franklin County

Lanett Senior HS 263 Lanett City

Ider School 264 Dekalb County

Vincent Middle HS 264 Shelby County

Lineville HS 265 Clay County

Lamar County HS 267 Lamar County

Reeltown HS 268 Tallapoosa County

South Choctaw HS 269 Choctaw County

Ohatchee HS 270 Calhoun County

Goshen HS 273 Pike County

Wicksburg HS 277 Houston County

104

Excel HS 278 Monroe County

West End HS 283 Etowah County

Ranburne HS 284 Cleburne County

Leroy HS 285 Washington County

Randolph County HS 286 Randolph County

Elba HS 287 Elba City

Lexington HS 287 Lauderdale County

Clements HS 289 Limestone County

Hale County HS 294 Hale County

Fyffe HS 295 Dekalb County

Clay County HS 303 Clay County

Winston County HS 304 Winston County

Fultondale HS 309 Jefferson County

Weaver HS 313 Calhoun County

Luverne HS 313 Crenshaw County

Calhoun HS 317 Lowndes County

Geraldine HS 318 Dekalb County

West Morgan HS 325 Morgan County

Barbour County HS 326 Barbour County

Pleasant Valley HS 327 Calhoun County

Piedmont HS 327 Piedmont City

105

Colbert Heights HS 328 Colbert County

Aliceville HS 330 Pickens County

Lafayette HS 334 Chambers County

JB Pennington HS 335 Blount County

Central HS 335 Lowndes County

Susan Moore HS 337 Blount County

White Plains HS 337 Calhoun County

Vinemont HS 340 Cullman County

Cordova HS 342 Walker County

Slocomb HS 343 Geneva County

Sheffield HS 343 Sheffield City

Sumter County HS 343 Sumter County

Glencoe HS 346 Etowah County

Montevallo HS 351 Shelby County

Carbon Hill HS 352 Walker County

Pike County HS 357 Pike County

Winfield HS 360 Winfield City

Marbury School 364 Autauga County

106

Group II Schools

School 9-12 Enrollment District

Colbert County HS 366 Colbert County

Holly Pond HS 366 Cullman County

Geneva HS 366 Geneva City

Gordo HS 366 Pickens County

Elkmont HS 367 Limestone County

Abbeville HS 369 Henry County

New Hope HS 370 Madison County

Lauderdale County HS 373 Lauderdale County

Hanceville HS 379 Cullman County

Wellborn HS 380 Calhoun County

West Blocton HS 384 Bibb County

TR Miller HS 389 Brewton City

Daleville HS 389 Daleville City

Dale County HS 391 Dale County

Hamilton HS 392 Marion County

Oneonta HS 392 Oneonta City

Brindlee Mountain HS 393 Marshall County

Hokes Bluff HS 397 Etowah County

Dadeville HS 399 Tallapoosa County

Danville HS 401 Morgan County

107

Good Hope HS 402 Cullman County

Leeds HS 403 Leeds City

Northside HS 404 Tuscaloosa County

Ashville HS 405 St. Clair County

Crossville HS 407 Dekalb County

West Limestone HS 408 Limestone County

Handley HS 409 Roanoke City

Sardis HS 411 Etowah County

Headland HS 413 Henry County

Plainview School 415 Dekalb County

Tarrant HS 416 Tarrant City

Beulah HS 418 Lee County

Clarke County HS 422 Clarke County

Greene County HS 427 Greene County

Opp HS 427 Opp City

Livingston HS 430 Sumter County

Saks HS 431 Calhoun County

Central HS 431 Coosa County

Straughn HS 431 Covington County

Rogers HS 433 Lauderdale County

Munford HS 434 Talladega County

108

Calera HS 439 Shelby County

Andalusia HS 441 Andalusia City

Wilson HS 441 Lauderdale County Booker T. Washington Magnet HS 443 Montgomery County

WS Neal HS 446 Escambia County

Priceville HS 447 Morgan County

Cherokee County HS 449 Cherokee County

Deshler HS 449 Tuscumbia City

Thomasville HS 454 Thomasville City

Hillcrest HS 455 Conecuh County

Midfield HS 456 Midfield City

Haleyville HS 457 Haleyville City

Fayette County HS 458 Fayette County

Corner HS 458 Jefferson County

Central HS 465 Lauderdale County

Oak Grove HS 470 Jefferson County

Holt HS 476 Tuscaloosa County

Brewbaker Tech. Magnet HS 483 Montgomery County

Jacksonville HS 491 Jacksonville City

Ardmore HS 493 Limestone County

109

Lincoln HS 499 Talladega County

North Jackson HS 500 Jackson County

Fairview HS 502 Cullman County

Holtville HS 506 Elmore County

Cleburne County HS 508 Cleburne County

Bullock County HS 509 Bullock County

Locust Fork HS 512 Blount County

Ashford HS 513 Houston County

East Lawrence HS 519 Lawrence County

Lawrence County HS 534 Lawrence County

Columbia HS 536 Huntsville City

Brooks HS 536 Lauderdale County

St. Clair County HS 539 St. Clair County

Dora HS 540 Walker County

Jemison HS 542 Chilton County

Ben C. Rain HS 548 Mobile County

Southside HS 554 Dallas County

Elmore County HS 554 Elmore County

Jackson HS 560 Clarke County

Childersburg HS 564 Talladega County

Alexandria HS 565 Calhoun County

110

Guntersville HS 568 Guntersville City

Ramsay HS 569 Birmingham City

West Point HS 582 Cullman County

Bibb County HS 585 Bibb County

Dallas County HS 587 Dallas County

East Limestone HS 594 Limestone County

Tallassee HS 612 Tallassee City

Anniston HS 613 Anniston City

Escambia County HS 619 Escambia County

Monroe County HS 619 Monroe County

Boaz HS 622 Boaz City

Shelby County HS 626 Shelby County

Springville HS 635 St. Clair County

Hayden HS 649 Blount County

West End HS 653 Birmingham City

Madison County HS 654 Madison County

Sylacauga HS 655 Sylacauga City

Moody HS 657 St. Clair County

Beauregard HS 665 Lee County

Curry HS 669 Walker County

Rehobeth HS 671 Houston County

111

Russellville HS 672 Russellville City

Charles Henderson HS 681 Troy City

Etowah HS 692 Attalla City

112

Group III Schools

School 9-12 Enrollment District

Butler HS 700 Huntsville City

Hayes HS 702 Birmingham City

Pleasant Grove HS 703 Jefferson County

Wilcox Central HS 708 Wilcox County

Spanish Fort HS 712 Baldwin County

Woodlawn HS Magnet 713 Birmingham City

Central HS 718 Tuscaloosa City

Demopolis HS 721 Demopolis City

Talladega HS 725 Talladega City

Muscle Shoals HS 726 Muscle Shoals City

Gulf Shores HS 731 Baldwin County

Arab HS 736 Arab City

Southside HS 736 Etowah County

Mortimer Jordan HS 747 Jefferson County

Greenville HS 749 Butler County

Scottsboro HS 759 Scottsboro City

Chelsea HS 762 Shelby County

Citronelle HS 770 Mobile County

Walker HS 773 Jasper City

Fort Payne HS 774 Fort Payne City

113

Chilton County HS 797 Chilton County

Carroll HS 797 Ozark City

Johnson HS 799 Huntsville City

CF Vigor HS 807 Mobile County

Erwin HS 822 Jefferson County

Lee HS 828 Huntsville City

Eufaula HS 833 Eufaula City

Cullman HS 835 Cullman City

Brewer HS 840 Morgan County

Valley HS 845 Chambers County Fairfield High Preparatory School 846 Fairfield City

Wenonah HS 863 Birmingham City

Booker T. Washington HS 863 Macon County

Parker HS 876 Birmingham City

Brookwood HS 878 Tuscaloosa County

McAdory HS 879 Jefferson County

Athens HS 891 Athens City

Hartselle HS 908 Hartselle City

Albertville HS 941 Albertville City

Mountain Brook HS 955 Mt. Brook City

114

Florence HS 959 Florence City

Gardendale HS 973 Jefferson County

Le Flore HS 975 Mobile County

Carver HS 979 Birmingham City

Hueytown HS 990 Jefferson County

Russell County HS 1,005 Russell County

Benjamin Russell HS 1,007 Alexander City

Selma HS 1020 Selma City

Pinson Valley HS 1,026 Jefferson County

Paul W. Bryant HS 1,043 Tuscaloosa City

Homewood HS 1,050 Homewood City

Jess Lanier HS 1,065 Bessemer City

Decatur HS 1,069 Decatur City

Buckhorn HS 1,076 Madison County

Northridge HS 1,080 Tuscaloosa City

Stanhope Elmore HS 1,113 Elmore County

Oxford HS 1,120 Oxford City

Carver Senior HS 1,125 Montgomery County

Wetumpka HS 1,136 Elmore County

Auburn HS 1,152 Auburn City

L.B. Williamson HS 1,168 Mobile County

115

Robertsdale HS 1,189 Baldwin County

Northview HS 1,196 Dothan City

Pell City HS 1,204 Pell City

Hazel Green HS 1,210 Madison County

Daphne HS 1,215 Baldwin County

Minor HS 1,219 Jefferson County

Hillcrest HS 1,231 Tuscaloosa County

Baldwin County HS 1,241 Baldwin County

Hewitt-Trussville HS 1,241 Trussville City

Shades Valley HS 1,267 Jefferson County

Sidney Lanier HS 1,268 Montgomery County

Fairhope HS 1,271 Baldwin County

Opelika HS 1,310 Opelika City

Satsuma HS 1,348 Mobile County

Huffman HS 1,371 Birmingham City

Enterprise HS 1,375 Enterprise City

Jackson-Olin HS 1,388 Birmingham City

Spain Park HS 1,404 Hoover City

Clay-Chalkville HS 1,410 Jefferson County

Robert E. Lee HS 1,417 Montgomery County

Dothan HS 1,440 Dothan City

116

Pelham HS 1,463 Shelby County

Jefferson Davis HS 1,485 Montgomery County

Foley HS 1,519 Baldwin County

Central HS 1,528 Phenix City

Blount HS 1,529 Mobile County

Gadsden City HS 1,531 Gadsden City

Davidson HS 1,550 Mobile County

Huntsville HS 1,575 Huntsville City

Austin HS 1,583 Decatur City

Alma Bryant HS 1,644 Mobile County

Thompson HS 1,650 Shelby County

Sparkman HS 1,679 Madison County

Theodore HS 1,690 Mobile County

Oak Mountain HS 1,710 Shelby County

Vestavia Hills HS 1,711 Vestavia Hills City

Mary G. Montgomery HS 1,757 Mobile County

Smiths Station HS 1,760 Lee County

Tuscaloosa County HS 1,773 Tuscaloosa County

Hoover HS 1,777 Hoover City

Baker HS 1,920 Mobile County

Grissom HS 1,971 Huntsville City

117

Bob Jones HS 2,056 Madison City

Prattville HS 2,238 Autauga County

Murphy HS 2,540 Mobile County